Effect of exploitation and exploration on the innovative as outcomes in entrepreneurial firms

[EN] The main aim of this study is to establish the effect of the Exploitation and Exploration; and the influence of these learning flows on the Innovative Outcome (IO). The Innovative Outcome refers to new products, services, processes (or improvements) that the organization has obtained as a result of an innovative process. For this purpose, a relationship model is defined, which is empirically contrasted, and can explains and predicts the cyclical dynamization of learning flows on innovative outcome in knowledge intensive firms. The quantitative test for this model use the data from entrepreneurial firms biotechnology sector. The statistical analysis applies a method based on variance using Partial Least Squares (PLS). Research results confirm the hypotheses, that is, they show a positive dynamic effect between the Exploration and the Innovative as outcomes. In the same vein, they results confirm the presence of the cyclic movement of innovative outcome with the Exploitation.In addition, this research is part of the Project ECO2015-71380-R funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness and the State Research Agency. Co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).Vargas-Mendoza, NY.; Lloria, MB.; Salazar Afanador, A.; Vergara Domínguez, L. (2018). Effect of exploitation and exploration on the innovative as outcomes in entrepreneurial firms. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. 14(4):1053-1069. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-018-0496-5S10531069144Alegre, J., & Chiva, R. (2008). Assessing the impact of organizational learning capability on product innovation performance: an empirical test. Technovation, 28, 315–326.Amara, N., Landry, R., Becheikh, N., & Ouimet, M. (2008). Learning and novelty of innovation in established manufacturing SMEs. Technovation, 28, 450–463.Aragón-Mendoza, J., Pardo del Val, M., & Roig, S. (2016). The influence of institutions development in venture creation decision: a cognitive view. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 4941–4946.Ardichvili, A. (2008). Learning and knowledge sharing in virtual communities of practice: motivators, barriers, and enablers. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10(4), 541–554.Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective. Reading: Addison Wesley.Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Singh, S. (1991). On the use of structural equation models in experimental designs: two extensions international. Journal of Research in Marketing, 8, 125–140.Belda, J., Vergara L., Salazar, A., & Safont G. (2018). Estimating the Laplacian matrix of Gaussian mixtures for signal processing on graphs, accepted for publication in Signal Processing.Boland, R. J. J., & Tenkasi, R. V. (1995). Perspective making and perspective taking in communities of knowing. Organization Science, 6(4), 350–372.Bontis, N., (1998). Intellectual capital: an exploratory study that develops measures models. Management Decision, 36, 63–76.Bontis, N. (1999). Managing an organizational learning system by aligning stocks and flows of knowledge: an empirical examination of intellectual capital, knowledge management, and business performance. 1999. Management of Innovation and New Technology Research Centre, McMaster University.Bontis, N., Keow, W., & Richardson, S. (2000). Intellectual capital and the nature of business in Malaysia. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(1), 85–100Bontis, N., Hullan, J., & Crossan, M. (2002). Managing an organizational learning system by aligning stocks and flows. Journal of Management Studies, 39, 438–469.Brachos, D., Kostopulos, K., Sodersquist, K. E., & Prastacos, G. (2007). Knowledge effectiveness, social context and innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(5), 31–44.Calantone, R. J., Cavusgil, S. T., & Zhao, Y. (2002). Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 31, 515–524.Chang, T. J., Yeh, S. P., & Yeh, I. J. (2007). The effects of joint rewards system in new product development. International Journal of Manpower, 28(3/4), 276–297.Chin, W. (1998). The partial least square approach to structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.) (pp. 294–336). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Cho, N., Li, G., & Su, C. (2007). An empirical study on the effect of individual factors on knowledge sharing by knowledge type. Journal of Global Business and Technology, 3(2), 1–15.Cohen, W. M., & Levin, R. C. (1989). Empirical studies of innovation and market structure. In R. Schmalansee & R. D. Willing (Eds.), Handbook of industrial organization II. New York: Elsevier.Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive-capacity – a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.Cooper, R. G. (2000). New product performance: what distinguishes the star products. Austrian Journal of Management, 25, 17–45.Crossan, M., & Berdrow, I. (2003). Organizational learning and strategic renewal. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 1087–1105.Crossan, M., & Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1154–1191.Crossan, M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: from intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24, 522–537.Damanpour, F., & Aravind, D. (2012). Managerial innovation: conceptions, processes, and antecedents. Management and Organization Review, 8(2), 423–454.Damanpour, F., & Shanthi, G. (2001). The dynamics of the adoption of products and process innovations in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 38(1), 21–65.Decarolis, D. M., & Deeds, D. L. (1999). The impact of stock and flows of organizational knowledge on firm performance: An empirical investigation of the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 953–968.Demartini, C. (2015). Relationships between social and intellectual capital: empirical Evidence from IC statements. Knowledge and Process Management, 22(2), 99–111.Dupuy, F. (2004). Sharing knowledge: they why and how of organizational change. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Fornell, C., & Bookstein, F. I. (1982). Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 440–452.Ganter, A., & Hecker, A. (2013). Deciphering antecedents of organizational innovation. Journal of Business Research, 66(5), 575–584.Ganter, A., & Hecker, A. (2014). Configurational paths to organizational innovation: qualitative comparative analyses of antecedents and contingencies. Journal of Business Research, 67, 1285–1292.Gopalakrishnan, S., & Damanpour, F. (1997). A review of innovation research in economics, sociology and technology management. International Journal of Management Science, 25, 15–28.Hedberg, B. (1981). How organizations learn and unlearn. In P. Nystrom & W. Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of organizational design. New York: Oxford University.Hedlund, G., & Nonaka, I. (1993). Models of knowledge management in the west and Japan. In: P. Lorange, B. Chacravrarthy, J. Ross, and J. Van de ven (Eds.) Cambridge: Basil Blackwell.Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., & Sinkovics, R.R. (2009). The use the partial least squares path modeling. In: R. Sinkovics and N. Pervez (Eds.) 277–319.Hsu, I. (2006). Enhancing employee tendencies to share knowledge-case studies on nine companies in Taiwan. International Journal of Information Management, 26(4), 326–338.Hsu, I. (2008). Knowledge sharing practices as a facilitating factor for improving organizational performance though human capital: a preliminary test. Expert Systems with Application, 35, 316–1326.Huang, Q., Davison, R., & Gu, J. (2008). Impact of personal and cultural factors on knowledge sharing in China. Asia Pacific Journal Management, 25(3), 451–471.Ibarra, H. (1993). Network centrality, power, and innovation involvement – determinants of technical and administrative roles. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 471–501.Iebra, I. L., Zegarra, P. S., & Zegarra, A. S. (2011). Learning for sharing: an empirical analysis of organizational learning and knowledge sharin. International Entrepreneurship Management Journal, 7, 509–518.Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge sharing in organizations: a conceptual framework. Human Resource Development Review, 2(4), 337–359.Jenkin, T. (2013). Extending the 4I organizational learning model: information sources, foraging processes and tools. Administrative Sciences, 3, 96–109.Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation, organizational learning, and performance. Journal of Business Research, 64, 408–417.Kane, G. C., & Alavi, M. (2007). Information technology and organizational learning: an investigation of exploration and exploitation processes. Organization Science, 18(5), 796–812.Kleinbaum, D. G., Kupper, N. N., Muller, K. E. (1988). Applied regression analysis and other Multivariable’s methods, PWS KENT.Klomp, L., & Van Leeuwen, G. (2001). Linking innovation and firm performance: a new approach. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 8(3), 343–364.Lansisalmi, H., Kivimaki, M., Aalto, P., & Ruoranen, R. (2006). Innovation in healthcare: a systematic review of recent research. Nursing Science Quarterly, 19(1), 66–72.Laperrière, A., & Spence, M. (2015). Enacting international opportunities: the role of organizational learning in knowledge-intensive business services. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 13(3), 212–241.Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–340.Lin, H. (2007). Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability: an empirical study. International Journal of Manpower, 28(3/4), 315–332.Lloria, M. B., & Moreno-Luzón, M. D. (2014). Organizational learning: proposal of an integrative scale and research instrument. Journal of Business Research, 67, 692–697.March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organizational Science, 2, 71–87.Matikainen, M., Terho, H., Parvinen, P., & Juppo, A. (2016). The role and impact of firm’s strategic orientations on launch performance: significance of relationship orientation. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 31(5), 625–639.Mone, M. A., McKinley, W., & Barker, V. L. (1998). Organizational decline and innovation: a contingency framework. Academy of Management Review, 23, 115–132.Moreno-Luzón, M. D., & Lloria, B. (2008). The role of non-structural and informal mechanisms of integration and integration as forces in knowledge creation. British Journal of Management, 19, 250–276.Moskaliuk, J., Bokhorst, F., & Cress, U. (2016). Learning from others' experiences: how patterns foster interpersonal transfer of knowledge-in-use. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 69–75.Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.Nonaka, I., & von Krogh, G. (2009). Perspective tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion: controversy and advancement in organizational knowledge creation theory. Organization Science, 20(3), 635–652.Parida, V., Lahti, T., & Wincent, J. (2016). Exploration and exploitation and firm performance variability: a study of ambidexterity in entrepreneurial firms. International Entrepreneurship Management Journal, 12, 1147–1164.Pew, H., Plowman, D., & Hancock, P. (2008). The involving research on intellectual capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 9, 585–608.Potter, R. E., & Balthazard, P. A. (2004). The role of individual memory and attention processes during electronic brainstorming. MIS Quarterly, 28(4), 621–643.Ramadani, V., Hyrije, A. A., Léo-Paul, D., Gadaf, R., & Sadudin, I. (2017). The impact of knowledge spillovers and innovation on firm-performance: findings from the Balkans countries. International Entrepreneurship Management Journal, 13, 299–325.Ren, S., Shu, R., Bao, Y., & Chen, X. (2016). Linking network ties to entrepreneurial opportunity discovery and exploitation: the role of affective and cognitive trust. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(2), 465–485.Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005). Smart PLS 2.0 (M3) beta, Hamburg: http://www.smartpls.de .Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Straub, D. (2012). A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), iii–xiv.Sanchez, R., & Heene, A. (1997). A competence perspective on strategic learning and knowledge management. En Sanchez, R. and Heene, A. (eds.) Strategic learning and knowledge management. John Wiley and Sons.Seidler-de Alwis, R., & Hartmann, E. (2008). The use of tacit knowledge within innovative companies: knowledge management in innovative enterprises. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(1), 133–147.Shrivastava, P. (1983). A typology of organizational learning systems. Journal of Management Studies, 20, 7–28.Tansky, J., Ribeiro, D., & Roig, S. (2010). Linking entrepreneurship and human resources in globalization. Human Resource Management, 49(2), 217–223.Teece, D. (2012). Dynamic capabilities: routines versus entrepreneurial action. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1395–1401.Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V., Chatelin, Y., & Lauro, C. (2005). PLS path modeling. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 49, 159–205.vande Vrande, V., de Jong, J., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Rochemont, M. (2009). Open innovation in SMEs: trends, motives and management challenges. Technovation, 29, 423–437.Vargas, N., & Lloria, M. B. (2014). Dynamizing intellectual capital through enablers and learning flows. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 114(1), 2–20.Vargas, N., & Lloria, M. B. (2017). Performance and intellectual capital: how enablers drive value creation in organisations. Knowledge and Process Management, 24(2), 114–124.Vargas, N., Lloria, M. B., & Roig-Dobón, S. (2016). Main drivers of human capital, learning and performance. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(5), 961–978.Vergara, L., Salazar, A., Belda, J., Safont, G., Moral, S., & Iglesias, S. (2017). Signal processing on graphs for improving automatic credit card fraud detection. Proceeding of 2017 I.E. 51st international Carnahan Conference on Security Technology (ICCST 2017), https://doi.org/10.1109/CCST.2017.8167820 , 23–26 Oct, 2017, Madrid, Spain.Wallin, M. W., & Von Krogh, G. (2010). Organizing for open innovation: focus o the integration of knowledge. Organizational Dynamics, 39(2), 145–154.Wang, C. L., & Ahmed, P. K. (2004). Linking innovation and firm performance: a new approach. European International Journal of Technology Management, 27, 674–688.Wold, H. (1980). Model construction and evaluation when theoretical knowledge is scarce. In J. Kmenta & J. B. Ramsey (Eds.), Evaluation of econometric models (pp. 47–74). Cambridge: Academic Press.Wold, H. (1985). Factors influencing the outcome of economic sanctions. In Sixto Ríos Honorary. Trabajos de Estadística and de Investigación Operativa, 36(3), 325–337

An ANP-Balanced Scorecard Methodology to Quantify the Impact of TQM Elements on Organisational Strategic Sustainable Development: Application to an Oil Firm Sustainability

[EN] This paper presents a methodology for quantifying the impact of Total Quality Management TQM elements on organisational strategic sustainable development, integrating within it the well-known strategic management tool of Balanced Scorecard to represent the strategic part of the organisations, and the multi-criteria technique Analytic Network Process (ANP) to identify and quantify the mentioned impact. Additionally, the application of TQM generates directly some organisational improvements¿or outputs¿which help model a decisional ANP network constituted by all three building blocks¿TQM elements, strategic objectives and outputs¿and their interrelationships. The application of the methodology to an oil firm carried out by an expert group o ered, from a decision-making point of view, meaningful results that were developed following three di erent analyses: Global analysis, which identified the global weight of each variable; Analysis of Influences, which established sound cause¿e ect relationships between the variables to identify the elements¿TQM and outputs¿that are more important to achieve the strategic objectives; and the Integrated analysis, which pointed out which TQM elements should be fostered in order to achieve the most important sustainable strategic objectives. Finally, it is suggested to apply the methodology to other types of size and sector activity organisations, as well as to use other techniques that introduce fuzzy elements.Andrade Arteaga, C.; Rodríguez Rodríguez, R.; Alfaro Saiz, JJ.; Verdecho Sáez, MJ. (2020). An ANP-Balanced Scorecard Methodology to Quantify the Impact of TQM Elements on Organisational Strategic Sustainable Development: Application to an Oil Firm Sustainability. Sustainability. 12(15):1-19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156207S1191215Hardie, N. (1998). The Effects of Quality on Business Performance. Quality Management Journal, 5(3), 65-83. doi:10.1080/10686967.1997.11918816Lee, C.-L., & Yang, H.-J. (2011). Organization structure, competition and performance measurement systems and their joint effects on performance. Management Accounting Research, 22(2), 84-104. doi:10.1016/j.mar.2010.10.003Powell, T. C. (1995). Total quality management as competitive advantage: A review and empirical study. Strategic Management Journal, 16(1), 15-37. doi:10.1002/smj.4250160105Westphal, J. D., Gulati, R., & Shortell, S. M. (1996). THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT: THE EMERGENCE OF NORMATIVE TQM ADOPTION AND THE CONSEQUENCES FOR ORGANIZATIONAL LEGITIMACY AND PERFORMANCE. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1996(1), 249-253. doi:10.5465/ambpp.1996.4980558Choi, T. Y., & Eboch, K. (1998). The TQM Paradox: Relations among TQM practices, plant performance, and customer satisfaction. Journal of Operations Management, 17(1), 59-75. doi:10.1016/s0272-6963(98)00031-xBrah, S. A., Tee, S. S. L., & Madhu Rao, B. (2002). Relationship between TQM and performance of Singapore companies. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 19(4), 356-379. doi:10.1108/02656710210421553Zakuan, N. M., Yusof, S. M., Laosirihongthong, T., & Shaharoun, A. M. (2010). Proposed relationship of TQM and organisational performance using structured equation modelling. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 21(2), 185-203. doi:10.1080/14783360903550020Corredor, P., & Goñi, S. (2011). TQM and performance: Is the relationship so obvious? Journal of Business Research, 64(8), 830-838. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.10.002Talib, F., Rahman, Z., & Qureshi, M. N. (2013). An empirical investigation of relationship between total quality management practices and quality performance in Indian service companies. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 30(3), 280-318. doi:10.1108/02656711311299845Ahmad, M. F., Zakuan, N., Jusoh, A., & Takala, J. (2012). Relationship of TQM and Business Performance with Mediators of SPC, Lean Production and TPM. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 65, 186-191. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.109García-Bernal, J., & Ramírez-Alesón, M. (2015). Why and How TQM Leads to Performance Improvements. Quality Management Journal, 22(3), 23-37. doi:10.1080/10686967.2015.11918439Qasrawi, B. T., Almahamid, S. M., & Qasrawi, S. T. (2017). The impact of TQM practices and KM processes on organisational performance. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 34(7), 1034-1055. doi:10.1108/ijqrm-11-2015-0160Singh, V., Kumar, A., & Singh, T. (2018). Impact of TQM on organisational performance: The case of Indian manufacturing and service industry. Operations Research Perspectives, 5, 199-217. doi:10.1016/j.orp.2018.07.004Hendricks, K. B., & Singhal, V. R. (2001). Firm characteristics, total quality management, and financial performance. Journal of Operations Management, 19(3), 269-285. doi:10.1016/s0272-6963(00)00049-8Hansson, J., & Eriksson, H. (2002). The impact of TQM on financial performance. Measuring Business Excellence, 6(4), 44-54. doi:10.1108/13683040210451714York, K. M., & Miree, C. E. (2004). Causation or covariation: an empirical re-examination of the link between TQM and financial performance. Journal of Operations Management, 22(3), 291-311. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2004.02.001Jaiswal, K., & Garg, M. (2018). Impact of TQM on employee and customer satisfaction-A study on tricity region. JIMS8M: The Journal of Indian Management & Strategy, 23(4), 28. doi:10.5958/0973-9343.2018.00031.5Ooi, K., Arumugam, V., Teh, P., & Yee‐Loong Chong, A. (2008). TQM practices and its association with production workers. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 108(7), 909-927. doi:10.1108/02635570810897991Dubey, R., & Gunasekaran, A. (2014). Exploring soft TQM dimensions and their impact on firm performance: some exploratory empirical results. International Journal of Production Research, 53(2), 371-382. doi:10.1080/00207543.2014.933909Basu, R., & Bhola, P. (2016). Impact of quality management practices on performance stimulating growth. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 33(8), 1179-1201. doi:10.1108/ijqrm-10-2015-0153Shafiq, M., Lasrado, F., & Hafeez, K. (2017). The effect of TQM on organisational performance: empirical evidence from the textile sector of a developing country using SEM. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 30(1-2), 31-52. doi:10.1080/14783363.2017.1283211Feng, J., Prajogo, D. I., Chuan Tan, K., & Sohal, A. S. (2006). The impact of TQM practices on performance. European Journal of Innovation Management, 9(3), 269-278. doi:10.1108/14601060610678149Kaynak, H. (2003). The relationship between total quality management practices and their effects on firm performance. Journal of Operations Management, 21(4), 405-435. doi:10.1016/s0272-6963(03)00004-4Wei, J.-T., Chang, Y. W., Zhang, X., Wu, H.-H., & Tang, Y.-T. (2017). Performance measurement systems, TQM and multi-level firm performance: a person–organisation fit perspective. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 30(15-16), 1578-1595. doi:10.1080/14783363.2017.1384311The Balanced Scorecard. Measures that Drive Performancehttps://steinbeis-bi.de/images/artikel/hbr_1992.pdfSabbagh, O., Ab Rahman, M. N., Ismail, W. R., & Wan Hussain, W. M. H. (2018). The impact of TQM practices on key performance indicators: empirical evidence from automotive dealerships. E+M Ekonomie a Management, 22(1), 115-129. doi:10.15240/tul/001/2019-1-008Albuhisi, A. M., & Abdallah, A. B. (2018). The impact of soft TQM on financial performance. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 35(7), 1360-1379. doi:10.1108/ijqrm-03-2017-0036Figge, F., Hahn, T., Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2002). The Sustainability Balanced Scorecard - linking sustainability management to business strategy. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(5), 269-284. doi:10.1002/bse.339Ferreira, L. M. D. F., Silva, C., & Azevedo, S. G. (2016). An environmental balanced scorecard for supply chain performance measurement (Env_BSC_4_SCPM). Benchmarking: An International Journal, 23(6), 1398-1422. doi:10.1108/bij-08-2013-0087Motevali Haghighi, S., Torabi, S. A., & Ghasemi, R. (2016). An integrated approach for performance evaluation in sustainable supply chain networks (with a case study). Journal of Cleaner Production, 137, 579-597. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.119Valenzuela, L., & Maturana, S. (2016). Designing a three-dimensional performance measurement system (SMD3D) for the wine industry: A Chilean example. Agricultural Systems, 142, 112-121. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2015.11.011Qorri, A., Mujkić, Z., & Kraslawski, A. (2018). A conceptual framework for measuring sustainability performance of supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 189, 570-584. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.073Verdecho, M.-J., Alarcón-Valero, F., Pérez-Perales, D., Alfaro-Saiz, J.-J., & Rodríguez-Rodríguez, R. (2020). A methodology to select suppliers to increase sustainability within supply chains. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 29(4), 1231-1251. doi:10.1007/s10100-019-00668-3Popovic, T., Kraslawski, A., Barbosa-Póvoa, A., & Carvalho, A. (2017). Quantitative indicators for social sustainability assessment of society and product responsibility aspects in supply chains. Journal of International Studies, 10(4), 9-36. doi:10.14254/2071-8330.2017/10-4/1Siva, V., Gremyr, I., Bergquist, B., Garvare, R., Zobel, T., & Isaksson, R. (2016). The support of Quality Management to sustainable development: a literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 138, 148-157. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.020Li, D., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Chen, X., & Cao, C. (2018). Impact of quality management on green innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 170, 462-470. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.158Todorut, A. V. (2012). Sustainable Development of Organizations through Total Quality Management. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 62, 927-931. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.157Abbas, J. (2020). Impact of total quality management on corporate sustainability through the mediating effect of knowledge management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 244, 118806. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118806Abbas, J. (2020). Impact of total quality management on corporate green performance through the mediating role of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Cleaner Production, 242, 118458. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118458Ruano Pérez, J. L., Rodríguez-Rodríguez, R., Alfaro Saiz, J.-J., & Verdecho, M.-J. (2018). An ANP-based network to measure the impact of Lean production on organisational performance. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 11(2), 222. doi:10.3926/jiem.2536Boj, J. J., Rodriguez-Rodriguez, R., & Alfaro-Saiz, J.-J. (2014). An ANP-multi-criteria-based methodology to link intangible assets and organizational performance in a Balanced Scorecard context. Decision Support Systems, 68, 98-110. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2014.10.002Verdecho, M.-J., Alfaro-Saiz, J.-J., Rodriguez-Rodriguez, R., & Ortiz-Bas, A. (2012). A multi-criteria approach for managing inter-enterprise collaborative relationships. Omega, 40(3), 249-263. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2011.07.004Neely, A., Adams, C., & Crowe, P. (2001). The performance prism in practice. Measuring Business Excellence, 5(2), 6-13. doi:10.1108/13683040110385142Saaty, T. L., & Shih, H.-S. (2009). Structures in decision making: On the subjective geometry of hierarchies and networks. European Journal of Operational Research, 199(3), 867-872. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2009.01.06

Human Resources and the Resource Based View of the Firm

The resource-based view (RBV) of the firm has influenced the field of strategic human resource management (SHRM) in a number of ways. This paper explores the impact of the RBV on the theoretical and empirical development of SHRM. It explores how the fields of strategy and SHRM are beginning to converge around a number of issues, and proposes a number of implications of this convergence

Strategic Management and HRM

[Excerpt] The purpose of this chapter is to discuss this intersection between Strategic Management and HRM, what we know, and future directions for SHRM research. We will begin by briefly discussing the concept of strategy and the popularization of the resource-based view (RBV) of the firm. Next we will address its role in creating the link between HRM and Strategic Management including key questions that the RBV has raised in relation to SHRM. We will then examine the current state of affairs in SHRM; the progress made, and key questions and concerns occupying the attention of SHRM researchers. Finally, we will conclude with our views on future directions for SHRM research

New human resource management systems in non-based-knowledge firms: Applications for decision making on the business performance

The aim of this paper is double. First, it provides a conceptual framework and modelling of the relationship between human resource management (HRM) systems and non-based-knowledge firms. Second, using survey data on 1.518 Catalan firms (in Spain, with capital in Barcelona), the paper: 1) identify two system of HRM (in progress HRM system and non-HRM developed system); 2) build a causal model of determinants of HRM systems; and 3) describe the association links between in progress HRM system and firm's performance. Using factor and cluster analysis, we find that only one-third of firms use in progress HRM system. Using logit binomial analysis, we find that features which are structural, technological, strategic, organisational and performance-related explain the adoption of in progress HRM system. Finally, using association analysis, we find that firms that adopt in progress HRM system: 1) are more internationalised and show greater ability to adapt to the changing environment, to innovate and to collaborate; 2) focus on product/service differentiation strategy enhancing quality; 3) apply a greater degree of new forms of work organization; 4) have more technological equipment and use IT more intensively; and 5) invest more in training their employees, than firms with non-HRM system developed

A Conceptual Framework of Reverse Logistics Impact on Firm Performance

This study aims to examine the reverse logistics factors that impact upon firm performance. We review reverse logistics factors under three research streams: (a) resource-based view of the firm, including: Firm strategy, Operations management, and Customer loyalty (b) relational theory, including: Supply chain efficiency, Supply chain collaboration, and institutional theory, including: Government support and Cultural alignment. We measured firm performance with 5 measures: profitability, cost, innovativeness, perceived competitive advantage, and perceived customer satisfaction. We discuss implications for research, policy and practice

Theoretical and Empirical Challenges in Studying: The HR Practice - Firm Performance Relationship

Over the past 10 years a plethora of research has been conducted seeking to establish a relationship between human resource (HR) practices and firm performance. While this research has demonstrated promising results, a significant number of problems exist. This paper seeks to identify the theoretical and empirical challenges facing researchers who wish to further establish the impact of HR practices on firm performance. We conclude with some recommendations for future research in this area that might more accurately assess this relationship in ways that will be useful for both researchers and practitioners

The impact of knowledge management processes on organisational performance

Copyright @ 2012 ISEing.In today's increasingly competitive business environment, the use of knowledge to gain a competitive advantage has become a serious concern for all organisations. However, despite the increasing number of studies relating to Knowledge Management (KM) in developed countries, few studies have explored this issue within the context of developing countries. Moreover, some industries have been affected more acutely than others in the transition to a knowledge-based economy. Towards covering this gap, this study aims at investigating the impact of Knowledge Management processes on Organisational Performance (OP). In this paper, the authors propose a conceptual model through an in-depth investigation of the previous and current studies in the area of Knowledge Management and Organisational Performance. Through an extensive classification of Knowledge Management processes, the proposed model explores the impact of each Knowledge Management process on improving the level of Organisational Performance. It is envisaged that this model can play a role in guiding the process of Knowledge Management implementation in order to maximise the beneficial effects of Knowledge Management processes on Organisational Performance

The effects of human resource practices on firm growth

Although the connection between firm growth and labour is well documented in economics literature, only recently the link between human resources (HR) and firm growth has attracted the interest of researchers. This study aims to assess the extent, if any, to which, specific HR practices may contribute to firm growth. We review a rich literature on the links between firm performance and the following HR practices: (1) job security (2) selective hiring, (3) self-managed teams (4) compensation policy, (5) extensive training, and (6) information sharing. We surveyed HR managers and recorded their perceptions about the links between HR practices and firm growth. Results demonstrated that compensation policy was the strongest predictor of sales growth. Results provide overall support for all HR practices except of job security. Eventually, selecting, training, and rewarding employees as well as giving them the power to decide for the benefit of their firm, contribute significantly to firm growth

Entrepreneurial Human Resource Strategy

[Excerpt] Entrepreneurship is the process by which opportunities to create future goods and services are discovered, evaluated, and exploited (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000: 218). In other words, it is the process by which organizations and individuals convert new knowledge into new opportunities in the form of new products and services. Strategic human resource management (SHRM) has been defined as the system of organizational practices and policies used to manage employees in a manner that leads to higher organizational performance (Wright and McMahan, 1992). Further, one perspective suggests that sets of HR practices do not themselves create competitive advantage; instead, they foster the development of organizational capabilities which in turn create such advantages (Lado and Wilson, 1994; Wright, Dunford, and Snell, 2001). Specifically, this body of literature suggests that HR practices lead to firm performance when they are aligned to work together to create and support the employee-based capabilities that lead to competitive advantage (Wright and Snell, 2000; Wright, Dunford, and Snell, 2001). Thus, entrepreneurial human resource strategy is best defined as the set or sets of human resources practices that will increase the likelihood that new knowledge will be converted to new products or services