طراحی و تبیین پیامدهای همکاری رقابتی برای ورود به بازار در صنعت فناوری اطلاعات و ارتباطات

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری، مدیریت بازاریابی بین‌الملل، دانشکده علوم اجتماعی و اقتصادی، دانشگاه الزهرا، تهران، ایران.(نویسنده مسئول مقاله)؛E.Vahidinia@gmail.com

2 عضو هیئت‌علمی، دکتری مدیریت، دانشکده علوم اجتماعی و اقتصادی، دانشگاه الزهرا، تهران، ایران.

3 استاد، دکتری مدیریت، دانشکده مدیریت و اقتصاد، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران.

4 دانشیار، دکتری مدیریت، دانشکده علوم اجتماعی و اقتصادی، دانشگاه الزهرا، تهران، ایران

چکیده

شرایط سخت بازارهای فرا رقابتی امروز، نه­تنها هزینه­ و ریسک ورود به بازار را به‌طور چشم­گیری افزایش داده، بلکه موجب شده تا سازمان­های نوپا در بدو ورود به بازار شکست بخورند. همکاری­های رقابتی، نوعی پارادایم فکری است که در پاسخ به مسائل بازارهای امروزی مطرح شد. در همکاری­های رقابتی، بازیگران اقتصادی از طریق همکاری با یکدیگر به خلق ارزش پرداخته درحالی‌که به‌صورت هم‌زمان برای کسب سهم بیشتری از همان ارزش در حال رقابت هستند. یکی از مسائل مهم پیش روی تصمیم­گیرندگان در پروژه­های همکاری رقابتی، این است که چگونه باید پیامدهای این نوع همکاری­ها را مورد ارزیابی قرار داده و تصمیم به ورود یا عدم ورود و همچنین ادامه یا قطع این همکاری­ها نمود؛ بنابراین، هدف این پژوهش نیز طراحی و تبیین پیامدهای همکاری رقابتی در ورود به بازار در صنعت فناوری اطلاعات و ارتباطات ایران است که ابتدا با استفاده از استراتژی نظریه داده بنیاد چندگانه به تحلیل داده­های حاصل از مرور نظام­مند ادبیات در بازه زمانی 15 سال اخیر پرداخته، سپس مصاحبه با 16 نفر از خبرگان صورت گرفته است. نهایتاً مدلی توسعه داده‌شده که در آن پیامدهای همکاری رقابتی در سه گروه «عملکرد برند»، «عملکرد صنعت» و «عملکرد ورود به بازار» تبیین شده ­است.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Design and Explain Consequences of Coopetition to Enter the Iranian ICT Industry

نویسندگان [English]

  • Elham Vahidinia 1
  • Masoomeh hoseinzadeh Shahri 2
  • Seyyed Hamid Khodadad Hoseini 3
  • Neda Abdollahvand 4
1 PhD Student, International Marketing Management, Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences, Al-Zahra University, Tehran.(Corresponding Author: E.Vahidinia@gmail.com)
2 Faculty member, PhD in Management, Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences, Al-Zahra University, Tehran
3  Faculty member, PhD in Management, Faculty of Management and Economics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran
4 Faculty member, PhD in Management, Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences, Al-Zahra University, Tehran.
چکیده [English]

Hard conditions of today's hypercompetition markets have not only dramatically increased the cost and risk of entering the market, but have also caused failure of new entrants. Coopetitions are born in response to this need. One of the important issues facing decision makers in coopetition projects is how to evaluate the consequences so that decide whether to enter the coopetition or not, as well as whether to continue or not. The purpose of this research is design and explain the consequences of coopetition for entering the ICT market of Iran, by analyzing the data gathered from systematic literature review over the past 15 years and interviewing with 16 ICT experts, through Multi Grounded Theory (MGT). Finally, a conceptual model is developed about the consequences of coopetition for entering the Iranian ICT market, which composed of three groups: "Brand Performance", "Industry Performance", and "Market entry Performance ".v

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • : Coopetition
  • Market entry
  • Coopetition consequence
  • Multi grounded theory
  • ICT industry
مظفری، محمدمهدی. اجلی، مهدی و گرمه­ای، راحیل. (1398). ارتباط گرایش به کارآفرینی، قابلیت بازاریابی و عملکرد شرکت با نقش تعدیل گر شدت رقابت در حوزه فناوری اطلاعات و ارتباطات و نرم­افزارهای رایانه­ای. مطالعاتمدیریتکسب‌وکارهوشمند، سال هفتم، شماره 27، صفحات 59-102.
Ahearne, M, Hu, Y. Lam, S.K & Schillewart, N. (2010). Resistance tobrand switching whena radically new brand is introduced: A social identity theory perspective. American marketing association. 74 (6), 128-146.
Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2014). Coopetition- Quo vadis? Past accomplishments and future challenges. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 180-188.
Bonel, E. and Rocco, E. (2007). Coopeting to survive; surviving coopetition. International Studies of Management & Organization, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 70-96.
Bouncken, R. B., Clau,B, T., & Fredrich, V. (2017). Product innovation through coopetition in alliances: Singular or plural governance? Industrial Marketing Management, 53, 77-90.
Chiambaretto, P., & Fernandez, A. S. (2016). The evolution of coopetitive and collaborative alliances in an alliance portfolio: The Air France case. Industrial Marketing Management, 57, 75–85.
Chin, W.W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In: Marcoulides, G.A. (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research. Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp. 295–336.
Creswell, W. John., Creswell, J. David. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 5th Edition. Kindle Edition.
Crick, J. M. (2018). The facets, antecedents and consequences of coopetition: an entrepreneurial marketing perspective. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 21(2), 253-272.
Czakon, W., Klimas, P., Mariani, M. (2019). Behavioral antecedents of coopetition: A synthesis and measurement scale. Long Range Planning.
De Chernatony, L., Harris, F., & Christodoulides, G. (2004). Developing a brand performance measure for financial services brands. The Service Industries Journal, 24, 15–33.
Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. M. (2001). Index construction with formative indicators: an alternative to scale development. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 269–277.
Dorn, Stefanie. Schweiger, Bastian. Albers, Sascha. (2016). Levels phases and themes of coopetition: A systematic literature review and research agenda, European Management Journal, Vol.34, 484-500.
Ehrenberg, A. S., Uncles, M. D., & Goodhardt, G. J. (2004). Understanding brand performance measures: Using Dirichlet benchmarks. Journal of Business Research, 57, 1307–1325.
Fornell, C., & Bookstein, F. L. (1982). Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 440–452.
Gnyawali, D. R., & Park, B.J. (2011). Co-opetition between giants: collaboration with competitors for technological innovation. Research Policy, 40(5), 650-663.
Goldkuhl, G., & Cronholm, S. (2010). Adding theoretical grounding to Grounded Theory: Toward Multi-Grounded Theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. (9)2, 187-205.
Hoffmann, W., Lavie, D., Reuer, J.J., Shipilov, A. (2018). The Interplay of Competition and Cooperation. Strategic Management Journal, 39, 3033-3052.
Huang, R., & Sarigöllü, E. (2014). Assessment of brand equity measures. International Journal of Market Research, 56, 783–806.
Jarvis, C.B., MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M., (2003). A critical review of construct in- dicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. J. Consum. Res. 30, 199–218.
Jaskiewicz, P., Combs, J.G. and Rau, S.B. (2015). Entrepreneurial legacy: toward a theory of how some family firms nurture transgenerational leadership. Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 29-49.
Jung, S.U., J. Zhu, and T.S. Gruca. (2016). A meta-analysis of correlations between market share and other brand performance metrics in FMCG markets. Journal of Business Research, 69 (12): 5901–5908.
Kraus, Sascha. Klimas, Patrycja. Gast, Johanna. Stephan, Tobias. (2018). Sleeping with competitors:Forms, antecedents and outcomes of coopetition of small and medium-sized craft beer breweries. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 25(1).
Le Roy, F. and Czakon, W. (2016). Managing coopetition: the missing link between strategy and performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 53, 3-6.
Lindstrom, T., & Polsa, P. (2015). Coopetition close to the customer — A case study of a small business network. Industrial Marketing Management, 53,  207-215.
Molinillo, S., Ekinci, Y., Japutra, A. (2019). A consumer-based brand performance model for assessing brand success. International Journal of Market Research. 61 (1): 93-110.
Padula, G., & Dagnino, G.B. (2007). Untangling the rise of coopetition: the intrusion of competition in a cooperative game structure. International Studies of Management & Organization, 37(2), 32-52.
Petter, R. R. H., Resende, L. M., Andrade Junior, P. P., & Horst, D. J. (2014). Systematic review: an analysis model for measuring the coopetitive performance in horizontal cooperation networks mapping the critical Success factors and their variables. Annals of Regional Science, 53(4), 157e178.
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2008). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. John Wiley & Sons.
Ritala, P., Golnam, A. and Wegmann, A. (2014). Coopetition-based business models: the case of Amazon.com. Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 236-249.
Rossiter, J. R. (2002). The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing. Journal of Research in Marketing, 19(4), 305–335.
Song, H.; Wanga, J. and Heesup Han, H. (2019). Effect of image, satisfaction, trust, love, and respect on loyalty formation for namebrand coffee shops, International Journal of Hospitality Management, 5(79), 50-59.
Strauss, Anselm. & Corbin, Juliet. (1998). Basic of Qualitative Reseach: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd ed, CA: Sage.theory: Toward multi-grounded theory.International journal of qualitative
Umachandran, K., Ferdinand, D.S., Jurcic, I., Della Corte, V. (2018). e-commerce: A Social Engagement.Tool, J, Econ, Financ, 8, 60–64.
Wong, H.Y., and B. Merrilees. (2015). An empirical study of the antecedents and consequences of brand engagement. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 33 (4): 575–591.
Wong, H.Y., and P. Sultan. (2019). How service quality affects university brand performance, university brand image and behavioural intention: the mediating effects of satisfaction and trust and moderating roles of gender and study mode. Journal of Brand Management. 26 (3): 332–347.
Wu, J. (2014). Cooperation with competitors and product innovation: moderating effects of technological capability and alliances with universities. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 199-209.