دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی

  اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات60
تعداد شماره‌ها2,178
تعداد مقالات17,639
تعداد مشاهده مقاله53,276,480
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله28,190,818
خلیل زاده سلماسی, مریم, حنفی زاده, پیام, قاضی نوری نایینی, سید سروش. (1403). مدل اتحاد بانک با بازیگران صنایع مختلف در راستای بهبود توانایی اکتشاف و بهره‌برداری. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 33(112), 103-142. doi: 10.22054/jmsd.2024.78329.4447
مریم خلیل زاده سلماسی; پیام حنفی زاده; سید سروش قاضی نوری نایینی. "مدل اتحاد بانک با بازیگران صنایع مختلف در راستای بهبود توانایی اکتشاف و بهره‌برداری". سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 33, 112, 1403, 103-142. doi: 10.22054/jmsd.2024.78329.4447
خلیل زاده سلماسی, مریم, حنفی زاده, پیام, قاضی نوری نایینی, سید سروش. (1403). 'مدل اتحاد بانک با بازیگران صنایع مختلف در راستای بهبود توانایی اکتشاف و بهره‌برداری', سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 33(112), pp. 103-142. doi: 10.22054/jmsd.2024.78329.4447
خلیل زاده سلماسی, مریم, حنفی زاده, پیام, قاضی نوری نایینی, سید سروش. مدل اتحاد بانک با بازیگران صنایع مختلف در راستای بهبود توانایی اکتشاف و بهره‌برداری. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 1403; 33(112): 103-142. doi: 10.22054/jmsd.2024.78329.4447

مدل اتحاد بانک با بازیگران صنایع مختلف در راستای بهبود توانایی اکتشاف و بهره‌برداری

مطالعات مدیریت بهبود و تحول
مقاله 4، دوره 33، شماره 112، تیر 1403، صفحه 103-142    اصل مقاله (1.04 M)
نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22054/jmsd.2024.78329.4447
نویسندگان
مریم خلیل زاده سلماسی* 1؛ پیام حنفی زاده2؛ سید سروش قاضی نوری نایینی3
1دانشجوی دکتری رشته مدیریت فناوری اطلاعات،دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران
2استاد گروه مدیریت صنعتی، دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران
3دانشیار گروه فناوری و کارآفرینی، دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران
چکیده
تحول دیجیتال، بانک ها را ملزم می سازد تا علاوه بر بهبود بهره برداری از امکانات موجود به سمت اکتشاف فرصت های جدید حرکت کنند. از این رو، بانک ها با استفاده از اتحاد با سازمان هایی از صنایع مختلف به دنبال ایجاد سازمانی دوسوتوان هستند. هدف این مقاله، پاسخ دادن به این سوال است که بانک ها چه اتحادی با بازیگران مختلف باید ایجاد کنند تا به دوسوتوانی سازمانی منجر شود. به این منظور، مدل مفهومی اولیه از ترکیب تئوری دوسوتوانی، شباهت صنعتی و قدرت پیوند تشکیل شد. سپس، ماتریس هم رخدادی مضامین برای اختصاصی کردن مدل مفهومی به جهت پیشنهاد نوع روش همکاری بانک با دیگر بازیگران استفاده شد. ماتریس هم رخدادی مضامین از تحلیل محتوای 115 مقاله مرتبط با اتحاد در صنعت بانکداری، استخراج شده است. مدل مفهومی نشان می دهد، هر نوع اتحاد، تحت شرایط شباهت صنعتی بازیگران با صنعت بانکداری به صورت بده‌بستانی، برخی از مولفه های اکتشاف و بهره برداری را محقق می سازد. لذا، تصمیم گیری برای تعیین نوع اتحاد مناسب، بنابرتعیین اولویت مولفه های اکتشاف و بهره برداری تحت شرایط شباهت صنعتی بازیگران قابل ارزیابی است.
کلیدواژه‌ها
اتحاد؛ دوسوتوانی؛ شباهت صنعتی؛ توسعه تئوری؛ تحول دیجیتال؛ صنعت بانکداری
مراجع
  1. Acharya, V., & Johnson, T. (2007). Insider trading in credit derivatives. Journal of Financial Economics, 84, 110–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2006.05.003
  2. Agyapong Siaw, C., & Sarpong, D. (2021). Dynamic exchange capabilities for value co-creation in ecosystems. Journal of Business Research, 134, 493–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.05.060
  3. Aldasoro, I., Delli Gatti, D., & Faia, E. (2017). Bank networks: Contagion, systemic risk and prudential policy. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 142, 164-188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2017.05.022
  4. Alford, A., Healy, P., & Hwa, N. (1998). The performance of international joint ventures: A study of the merchant banking industry in singapore. Journal of Corporate Finance, 31–52. https://doi.org/S0929-1199 97 00008-4
  5. Allen, L., & Gottesman, A. (2006). The informational efficiency of the equity market as compared to the syndicated bank loan market. Journal of Financial services Research, 30, 5–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10693-006-8738-z
    1. Alvarez, S., Young, S., & Woolley, J. (2014). Opportunities and institutions: A co-creation story of the king crab industry. Journal of Business Venturing, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2014.07.011
  6. Amici, A., Fiordelisi, F., Masala, F., Ricci, O., & Sist, F. (2013). Value creation in banking through strategic alliances and joint ventures. Journal of Banking & Finance, 37, 1386–1396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2012.03.028
  7. Barringer, B., & Harrison, J. (2000). Walking a Tightrope: Creating Value Through Interorganizational Relationships. Journal of Management, 26(3), 367–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(00)00046-5
  8. Barth, J., Lin, C., Lin, P., & song, F. (2009). Corruption in bank lending to firms: Cross-country micro evidence on the beneficial role of competition and information sharing. Journal of Financial Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2008.04.003
  9. Behr, P., & Güttler, A. (2007). Credit risk assessment and relationship lending: An empirical analysis of German small and medium-sized enterprises. Journal of small Business Management, 45(2), 194–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2007.00209.x
  10. Bermpei, T., Kalyvas, A., Neri, L., & Russo, A. (2018). Will strangers Help you Enter? The Effect of Foreign Bank Presence on New Firm Entry. Journal of Financial services Research, 56, 56:1–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10693-017-0286-1
  11. Bresciani, S., Ferraris, A., & Giudice, M. (2017). The management of organizational ambidexterity through alliances in a new context of analysis: Internet of Things (IoT) smart city projects. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 136, 331-338. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.002
  12. Broughman, B., & Fried, J. (2012). Do VCs use inside rounds to dilute founders? some evidence from silicon Valley. Journal of Corporate Finance. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2012.06.012
  13. Brunetti, C., H. Harris, J., Mankad, S., & Michailidis, G. (2018). Interconnectedness in the interbank market. Journal of Financial Economics, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2019.02.006
  14. Campanella, F., Del Giudice, M., Thrassou, A., & Vrontis, D. (2020). Ambidextrous organizations in the banking sector: an empirical verification of banks’ performance and conceptual development. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(2), 272-302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1239122
  15. Chang, C., Liao, G., Yu, X., & NI, Z. (2014). Information from Relationship Lending: Evidence from Loan Defaults in China. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 46(6), 1225-1257. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmcb.12139
  16. Chung, S., Singh, H., & Lee, K. (2000). Complementarity, status similarity and social capital as drivers of alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200001)21:1<1::AID-SMJ63>3.0.CO;2-P
  17. Colombo, M., D'Adda, D., & Pirelli, L. (2016). The participation of new technology-based firms in EU-funded R&D partnerships: The role of venture capital. Research Policy, 361–375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.10.011
  18. Cooper, M., Lambert, D., & J.D, P. (1997). Supply chain management: Morethan anewnameforlogistics. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 8(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1108/09574099710805556
  19. Dittrich, K., Duysters, G., & de Man, A.-P. (2007). Strategic repositioning by means of alliance networks: The case of IBM. Research Policy, 1496–1511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.07.002
  20. Donaldson, L. (2008). The Conflict between Contingency and Institutional Theories of Organizational Design. In: Burton, R., Eriksen, B., Håkonsson, D., Knudsen, T., Snow, C. (eds) Designing Organizations. Information and Organization Design Series, Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-77776-4_1
  21. Easterby-Smith, M., Lyles, M., & Peteraf, M. (2009). Dynamic Capabilities: Current Debates and Future Directions. British Journal of Management, 20, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2008.00609.x
  22. Elango, B., & Dhandapani, K. (2020). Does institutional industry context matter to performance? An extension of. Journal of Business Research 115 (2020), 115, 139–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.04.037
  23. Garcı´a-Casarejos, N., Alcalde-Fradejas, N., & Espitia-Escuer, M. (2009). Staying Close to the Core: Lessons from Studying the Costs of Unrelated Alliances in Spanish Banking. Long Range Planning, 42, 194-215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.01.003
  24. Gewald, H., & Dibbern, J. (2009). Risks and benefits of business process outsourcing: A study of transaction services in the German banking industry. Information and Management, 46, 249–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2009.03.002
  25. Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J.-B., & Kumar, N. (2006). Make, buy, or ally: a transaction cost theory meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 519–543. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.21794670
  26. Gofman, M. (2017). Efficiency and stability of a financial architecture with too-interconnected-to-fail institutions. Journal of Financial Economics, 124, 113-146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2016.12.009
  27. Gomes, E., Barnes, B., & Mahmood, T. (2016). A 22 year review of strategic alliance research in the leading management journals. International Business Review, 25, 15-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2014.03.005
  28. Grote, M., & Täube, F. (2007). When outsourcing is not an option: International relocation of investment bank research - Or isn't it? Journal of International Management, 13, 57 – 77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2006.09.007
  29. Gulati, R., & Higgins, M. (2003). Which ties matter when? The contingent effects of interorganizational partnerships on ipo success. Strategic Management Journal, 127–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.287
  30. Gulati, R., Lawrence, P., & Puranam, P. (2005). Adaptation in vertical relationships: beyond incentive conflict. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 415–440. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.458
  31. Hanafizadeh, Payam, sharing the value created in ecosystems, 9th conference of electronic banking and payment systems, pp. 1-10, 1 and 2 March 2022.
  32. Håkansson, H., & Snehota, I. (1995). Developing relationships in business network. New Fetter Lane, London: Routledge.
  33. Heracleous, L., Papachroni, A., Andriopoulos, C., & Gotsi, M. (2017). Structural ambidexterity and competency traps: Insights from Xerox PARC. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 117, 327–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.11.014
  34. Hernandez-Canovas, G., & Martınez-Solan, P. (2010). Relationship lending and sME financing in the continental European bank-based system. Small Business Economics, 34, 465–482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-008-9129-7
  35. He, Q., Meadows, M., Angwin, D., Gomes, E., & Child, J. (2020). Strategic Alliance Research in the Era of Digital Transformation: Perspectives on Future Research. British Journal of Management, 0, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12406
  36. Houston, J., Itzkowitz, J., & Naranjo, A. (2017). Borrowing beyond borders: Foreign assets, lender choice, and loan pricing in the syndicated bank loan market. Journal of Corporate Finance, 42, 315–334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2016.12.002
  37. Huang, J., Matthews, K., & Zhou, P. (2020). What causes Chinese listed firms to switch bank loan provider? Evidence from a survival analysis. Emerging Markets Review, 1-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ememar.2020.100678
  38. Im, G., & Rai, A. (2014). IT-Enabled Coordination for Ambidextrous Interorganizational Relationships. Information Systems Research, 25(1), 72–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.2013.0496
  39. Jagtiani, J., & Lemieux, C. (2019). The Roles of Alternative Data and Machine Learning in Fintech Lending: Evidence from the LendingClub Consumer Platform. Financial Management, 48(4), 1009-1029. https://doi.org/10.21799/frbp.wp.2018.15
  40. Jansen, J., Simsek, Z., & Cao, Q. (2012). Ambidexterity and performance in multiunit contexts: cross-level moderating effects of structural and resource attributes. Strategic Management Journal, 13(11), 1286-1303. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.1977
  41. Ketokivi, M., & Mahoney, J. (2017). Transaction Cost Economics as a Theory of the Firm, Management, and Governance. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.6
  42. King, T. (2008). Discipline and liquidity in the interbank market. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 40(2–3), 295-317. https://doi.org/10.1111/fima.12191
  43. Koda, K., & Yamada, K. (2018). Determinants of Underwriting Fees by New Entrant Banks: Evidence from the Japanese IPO Underwriting Market. Financial Management, 285 – 307. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-4616.2008.00114.x
  44. Kohtamäki, M., Rabetino, R., & Möller, K. (2018). Alliance capabilities: A systematic review and future research directions. Industrial Marketing Management, 60, 188–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.10.014
  45. Krause, A., & Giansante, s. (2012). Interbank lending and the spread of bank failures: A network model of systemic risk. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 83, 583–608. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2012.05.015
  46. Lazarinis, F., Green, S., & Pearson, E. (2011). What is Normative Isomorphism. In Handbook of Research on E-Learning Standards and Interoperability: Frameworks and Issues. IGI.
  47. Lee, H., Harindranath, G., Oh, S., & Kim, D.-J. (2015). Provision of mobile banking services from an actor–network perspective: Implications for convergence and standardization. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 90, 551–561. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.02.007
  48. Macchi, M., Levi, D., & Westland, S. (2016). Banking reinvented Beyond value chains to value networks. Accenture Strategy. https://www.accenture.com/t20160628t211350__w__/us-en/_acnmedia/pdf-24/accenture-strategy-banking-reinvented-value-chains-n
  49. Mamédio, D., Rocha, C., Szczepanik, D., & Kato, H. (2019). Strategic alliances and dynamic capabilities: a systematic review. Journal of Strategy and Management, 12(1), 83-102.  https://doi.org/10.1108/JSMA-08-2018-0089
  50. Martynov, A. (2017). Alliance portfolios and firm performance: the moderating role of firms’ strategic positioning. Journal of Strategy and Management, 10(2), 206-226. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSMA-01-2016-0003
  51. Novindra Idroes, F., Tisnawati Sule, E., Rufaidah, P., & Sari, D. (2017). Isomorphism in the Banking Industry of the Regional Development Banks in Indonesia. 1st International Conference on Islamic Economics, Business, and Philanthropy (ICIEBP 2017) (pp. 452-457). Transforming Islamic Economy and Societies, pages
  52. Norden, L., Roosenboom, P., & Wang, T. (2013). The impact of government intervention in banks on corporate borrowers' stock returns. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 48(5), 1635–1662. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022109013000537
  53. Obayi, R., & Ebrahimi, S. (2021). A neo-institutional view of the transaction cost drivers of construction supply chain risk management. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 26(5), 592–609. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-09-2019-0350
  54. O’Reilly IIIa, C., & Tushman, M. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.06.002
  55. O'Brien, J., & Sasson, A. (2017). A contingency theory of entrepreneurial debt governance. Journal of Business Research, 81, 118–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.08.011
  56. (2018). Digitalisation, business models and value creation. Paris: nclusive Framework on BEPS, OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264293083-4-en
  57. Parada,, P., Alemany, L., & Planellas, M. (2009). The Internationalisation of Retail Banking: Banco Santander's Journey towards Globalisation. Long Range Planning, 654-677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.09.006
  58. Parmigiani , A., & Rivera-Santos , M. (2011). Clearing a Path Through the Forest: A MetaReview of Interorganizational Relationships. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1108-1136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311407507
  59. Patel, C., & Husairi, M. (2018). Firm Adaptation, Preadaptation, and Sequential Ambidexterity in Firm Boundaries During an Era of Ferment and an Era of Incremental Change. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(3), 330–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12409
  60. Petrou, A. (2009). Foreign Market Entry Strategies in Retail Banking: Choosing an Entry Mode in a Landscape of Constraints. Long Range Planning, 42, 614-632. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.lrp.2009.09.001
  61. Porter, M. (1985). Competitive advantage, creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: Free Press.
  62. Pournader, M., Kach, A., Fahimnia, B., & Sarkis, J. (2019). Outsourcing performance quality assessment using data envelopment analytics. International Journal of Production Economics, 173–182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.07.004
  63. Potter, W., & Levine‐Donnerstein, D. (1999). Rethinking validity and reliability in content analysis. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27(3), 258-284. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909889909365539
  64. Randhawa, K., Wilden, R., & Gudergan, S. (2021). How to innovate toward an ambidextrous business model? The role of dynamic capabilities and market orientation. Journal of Business Research, 130, 618–634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.046
  65. Rhonda R., L., & Vokurka, R. (1999). Defining supply chain management: a historical perspective and practical guidelines. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 99(1), 11-17. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635579910243851
  66. Ricciotti, F. (2019). From value chain to value network: a systematic literature review. Management Review Quarterly, 69, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-019-00164-7
  67. Roehricha, J., Selviaridis, K., Kalra, J., Van der Valk, W., & Fang, F. (2020). Inter-organizational governance: a review, conceptualisation and extension. Production planning & control, 31(6), 453–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2019.1647364
  68. Rojas-Córdova, C., Williamson, A., Pertuze, J., & Calvo, G. (2023). Why one strategy does not fit all: a systematic review on exploration–exploitation in different organizational archetypes. Review of Managerial Science, 17(7), 2251-2295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-022-00577-x
  69. Rosenkopf, L., & Schilling, M. (2007). Comparing alliance network structure across industries: observations and explanations. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1, 191–209. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/sej.33
  70. Ross, S. (2022). How the Financial Services Sector Differs From Banks. Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/open-banking.asp
  71. Saiedi, E., Broström , A., & Ruiz, F. (2020). Global drivers of cryptocurrency infrastructure adoption. Small Business Economics, 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00309-8
  72. San-Jose, L., Retolaza, J., & Gutierrez-Goiria, J. (2011). Are Ethical Banks Different? A Comparative Analysis Using the Radical Affinity Index. Journal of Business Ethics, 100, 151–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0774-4
  73. Sarmento, M., Simões, C., & Lages, L. (2024). From organizational ambidexterity to organizational performance: The mediating role of value co-creation. Industrial Marketing Management, 118, 175-188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2024.02.010
  74. Schiffer, S. (2021). Structural Ambidexterity as an Approach for an Incumbents Digital Transformation. Twenty-Seventh Americas Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1-11). Montreal: Association for Information Systems.
  75. Scott , s., & Zachariadis, M. (2012). Origins and development of sWIFT, 1973-2009. Business History, 54(3), 462-482. https://doi.org/10.1080/00076791.2011.638502
  76. Steinbacher, M., & Jagri, T. (2018). Interbank rules during economic declines: Can banks safeguard capital base? Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11403-018-0228-5
  77. Tie, Y., Birks, M., & Francis, K. (2019). Grounded theory research: A design framework for novice researchers. SAGE Open Medicine, 7, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050312118822
  78. Úbeda-García, M., Claver-Cortés, E., Marco-Lajara, B., & Zaragoza-Sáez, P. (2020). Toward a dynamic construction of organizational ambidexterity: Exploring the synergies between structural differentiation, organizational context, and interorganizational relations. Journal of Business Research, 112, 363-372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.051
  79. Uzzi, B., & Gillespie, J. (2002). Knowledge spillover in corporate financing networks: Embeddedness and the firm's debt performance. Strategic Management Journal, 595–618. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.241
  80. Vargo, S., & Lusch, R. (2008). Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution. of the Acad. Mark. Sci., 36, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0069-6
  81. Velu, C. (2016). Evolutionary or revolutionary business model innovation through coopetition? The role of dominance in network markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 53, 124–135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.11.007
  82. Calomiris, C., & Carlson , M. (2017). Interbank networks in the National Banking Era: Their purpose and their role in the Panic of 1893. Journal of financial economics, 125, 434-453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2017.06.007
  83. Waal, A., Habil, D., & Goedegebuure, R. (2017). Formulating a partnership framework for Egyptian ICT companies. Journal of Strategy and Management, 10(3), 293-312. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSMA-03-2016-0021
  84. Wassmer, U. (2010). Alliance Portfolios: A Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Management, 36(10), 141-171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308328484
  85. Weigelt, C. (2009). The impact of outsourcing new technologies on integrative capabilities and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 595–616. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.760
  86. Weigelt, C., & Sarkar, M. (2012). Performance implications of outsourcing for technological innovations: managing the efficiency and adaptability trade-off. Strategic Management Journal, 33, 189–216. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.951
  87. Wonglimpiyarat, J. (2007). Management and governance of venture capital: A challenge for commercial bank. Technovation, 27, 721–731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2007.05.010
  88. Yu, M.-M., Lin, C.-I., Chen, K.-C., & Chen, L.-H. (2019). Measuring Taiwanese bank performance: A two-system dynamic network data envelopment analysis approach. Omega, 1-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2019.102145
  89. Zahoor, N., Khan, Z., Marinova, S., & Cu, L. (2023). Ambidexterity in strategic alliances: An integrative review of the literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12348
  90. Zhu, X., & Li, Y. (2023). The use of data-driven insight in ambidextrous digital transformation: How do resource orchestration, organizational strategic decision-making, and organizational agility matter? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 196, 122851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122851
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 824
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 423


login