SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi / 2007 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 1

Kaynak Tabanlı İşletme Yetenekleri Ölçeği Geliştirilmesi ve Doğrulanması

A. Zafer ACAR
Cemal ZEHİR
Pages
103–131
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Consequently, a measurement instrument with seven dimensions of business capabilities has been obtained.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Resource base view (RBV) defines capabilities as collective skills, abilities, and expertise of a firm that plays strategically crucial role to acquire competitive advantage.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Researchers that pursue RBV, many times tested the effects of business capabilities on performance and competitive advantage.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Consequently, a measurement instrument with seven dimensions of business capabilities has been obtained.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Resource base view (RBV) defines capabilities as collective skills, abilities, and expertise of a firm that plays strategically crucial role to acquire competitive advantage. Researchers that pursue RBV, many times tested the effects of business capabilities on performance and competitive advantage. But the findings have been diverse because of the lack of a valid and reliable measurement instrument. Thus, a measurement instrument has been developed to fulfill this gap. Data collected from 379 executives have been analyzed to test the validity and reliability using confirmatory factor analyzing. Consequently, a measurement instrument with seven dimensions of business capabilities has been obtained.

Özet

Kaynak Tabanlı Görüş (KTG) işletme yeteneklerini, rekabet avantajı yaratmak için stratejik seviyede önemli ve firmaların faaliyetlerini etkin olarak koordine etmelerine imkan sağlayan beceri ve bilgi demeti olarak tanımlanmaktadır. KTG teorisinin takipçisi araştırmacılar tarafından, işletme yeteneklerinin performans ve rekabet avantajıyla olan ilişkileri birçok kez test edilmiş ancak birbirlerinden farklı sonuçlar elde edilmiştir. Bunun nedenlerinden birisi işletme yeteneklerine ait geçerliliği ve güvenilirliği ispatlanmış bir araştırma ölçeğinin bulunmayışıdır. Bu konudaki çalışmalara katkı sağlamak amacıyla geliştirilen işletme yetenekleri ölçeğinin geçerlilik ve güvenilirliği 379 işletme yöneticisinden toplanan veriler kullanılarak doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ile test edilmiştir. Sonuç olarak yedi boyutlu bir işletme yetenekleri ölçeği elde edilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ACAR, A. Z., ZEHİR, C. (2022). Kaynak Tabanlı İşletme Yetenekleri Ölçeği Geliştirilmesi ve Doğrulanması. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 1, 103–131. https://ajindex.com/articles/490730

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Amit, R ve Schoemaker, P.J.H. (1993). Strategic Assets and Organizational Rents. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 33-46.
  2. Bagozzi, R.P. (1981) An examination of the validity of two models of article. Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol.18, pp.21-37
  3. Bagozzi, R.P. ve Phillips, L.W. (1982). Representing and Testing Organizational Theories: A Holistic Construct. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 459-489.
  4. Bagozzi, R.P. ve Yi, Y. (1988). On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74 – 94. Barney, J. (1986). Strategic Factor Markets: Expectations, Luck, and Business Strategy. Management Science, 32(10), 1231-1241.
  5. Barney, J.B. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17 (1), 99 -120. Barney, J.B. (1995). Looking Inside For Competitive Advantage. Academy of Management Executive, 9 (4), 49–61.
  6. Barney, J.B. ve Zajac, E.J. (1994). Competitive Organizational Behavior: Toward an Organizationally-Based Theory of Competitive Advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 5–9.
  7. Bentler, P.M. (1990). On the Equivalence of Factors and Components. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25 (1), 67-74.
  8. Bentler, P.M. ve Bonett, D.G. (1980). Significant Test Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of Covariance Structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
  9. Birchall, D.W. ve Tovstiga, G. (1999). The Strategic Potential of a Firm’s Knowledge Portfolio. Journal of General Management, 25, 1–16.
  10. Byrne, B.N. (2001) Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications and Programming. Mahwah, NJ., Lawrence Erbaum Associates Celuch, K.G., Kasouf, C.J. ve Peruvemba, V. (2002). The Effects of Perceived Market and Learning Orientation on Assessed Organizational Capabilities. Industrial Marketing Management, 31, 545-554.
  11. Chandler, A.D. (1990). Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press.
  12. Chau, P.Y.K. (1997). Reexamining a Model for Evaluating Information Center Success Using aStructural Equation Modeling Approach. Decision Science, 28, 309-334.
  13. Churchill, G. (1979). A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 64-73.
  14. Day, G.S. (1994). The Capabilities of Market-Driven Organizations. Journal of Marketing, 58 (October), 37 – 52. Deming, W.E. (1998). Krizden Çıkış (Çev.: Akaş, C.). İstanbul:
  15. KalDer Yayınları.
  16. DeSarbo, S.W., DiBenedetto, C.A., Jedidi, K. ve Song, K. (2006). Identifying So