دیدبانی متغیرهای تاثیرگذار «در سطح صنعت» به منظور ارزش‌آفرینی شرکت‌های دانش‌بنیان مادری

محورهای موضوعی : مدیریت صنعتی

Ali Abdali ¹ , erfan movahedifar ²

1 - Department of Management, Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran.
2 - Department of Management, Allameh Tabatabai University, Tehran, Iran.

تاریخ دریافت : 1401/08/14 تاریخ پذیرش : 1401/11/30 تاریخ انتشار : 1402/03/30

کلید واژه: دیدبانی, شرکت‌های تابعه, سازمان دانش‌بنیان, داده‌بنیاد,

چکیده مقاله :

این پژوهش با هدف نشان دادن ارزش و اهمیت دیدبانی و استفاده از داده‌ها و اطلاعات در سطح صنعت و تاثیر آن در خلق ارزش و جلوگیری از نابودی ارزش در بنگاه مادر تخصصی صنایع پتروشیمی، به عنوان یک شرکت دانش‎‌بنیان می‌باشد. این پژوهش از نوع کیفی می‌باشد که از مدیران با تجربه صنعت پتروشیمی به روش نمونه‌گیری گلوله برفی مصاحبه شده است و مصاحبه‌ها تا رسیدن به اشباع نظری که 23 مصاحبه را شامل می‌شود ادامه یافته است. گزاره‌های این پژوهش به کمک روش داده بنیاد و با استفاده از نرم افزار MAXQDA تحلیل گردیده است. براساس نتایج تحلیل اطلاعات بدست آمده از خبرگان مشارکت کننده در پژوهش، مدل دیدبانی متغیرهای تاثیرگذار در ارزش‌آفرینی شرکت‌های دانش‌بنیان مادری در سطح صنعت؛ شامل 194 کد باز می‌باشد که در قالب 34 گزاره مشترک تقسیم‌بندی شده است. گزاره‌های مدل در این سطح در قالب 5 مفهوم اصلی تقسیم‌بندی شده که شامل مفاهیم؛ رقبا 10 گزاره (29 درصد)، مشتریان و بازارها 8 گزاره (24 درصد)، تامین‌کنندگان 4 گزاره (5/11 درصد)، محصولات و کالاهای جایگزین 4 گزاره (5/11 درصد) و علوم و فناوری 8 گزاره (24 درصد) می‌شود. بنابراین بنگاه مادری صنعت پتروشیمی به عنوان یک مجموعه دانش‌بنیان عظیم در سطح کشور به منظور ارزش آفرینی بیشتر، می‌تواند به کمک این مدل، نسبت به شناسایی متغیرهای تاثیرگذار (در سطح صنعت) اقدام و با در نظر گرفتن آینده های ممکن، محتمل و مرجح و همچنین تحلیل اطلاعات بدست آمده، جهت برنامه‌ریزی و اتخاذ تصمیمات راهبردی مورد توجه مدیران و کارشناسان سازمان قرار گیرد.

چکیده انگلیسی:

This research is of a qualitative type, in which managers with experience in the petrochemical industry were interviewed using the snowball sampling method, and the interviews continued until reaching theoretical saturation, which includes 23 interviews. The propositions of this research have been analyzed with the help of foundation data method and using MAXQDA software. Based on the results of the analysis of the information obtained from the experts participating in the research, the monitoring model of the influencing variables in the value creation of parent knowledge-based companies "at the industry level" contains 194 open codes, which are divided into 34 common propositions. Model propositions at this level are divided into 5 main concepts as follow: Competitors are 10 propositions (29%), customers and markets are 8 propositions (24%), suppliers are 4 propositions (11.5%), substitute products and goods are 4 propositions (11.5%), and science and technology are 8 propositions (24%). Therefore, the parent company of the petrochemical industry, as a huge knowledge-based organization in the country, can use this model to identify the influential variables (at the industry level) in order to create more value. Considering possible, probable and preferred futures, the parent company can analyze the obtained information to be taken into consideration by managers and experts for planning and making strategic decisions.

منابع و مأخذ:

1. Abdali, A., Godarzi, G., Sohrabi, T. (2020). Validation the intelligence Model of Petrochemical Industry Parent Co. Journal of Strategic Management in Industrial Systems, 15(51), 67-82.


2. Abdali, A., Godarzi, G., Sohrabi, T., & Movahedifar, E. (2020). Petrochemical Parent Company Observatory Model with Due Attention to Subsidiaries. Journal of Human Capital Empowerment, 3(3), 185-201.


3. Ahmad, S.D., Pujiyono & Manthovani, R. (2018). Legal Liability of Parent Company on Subsidiary’s Bankruptcy in Indonesia. International Journal of Trend in Research and Development, 5(1), 312-315.


4. Asadzadeh, A., & Rahmanseresht, H. (2015). A model describing intelligence in parent companies. Journal of Business Management, 7(4), 805-822. doi: 10.22059/jibm.2015.57092


5. Atabaki, Mohsen. (2005). Management of Holding Organizations, 2^nd edition, Tehran, Payam Moalef Publications.


6. Azar, A., Rahnavard, F., Mosalmani, G. (2016). A Model for Designing Industrial Strategy: The Case of Petrochemical Industry. Journal of Management and development Process (JMDP), 28 (4), 61-90
   URL: http://jmdp.ir/article-1-1807-fa.html


7. Babaei, Mohammad Ali. (2005). The role of human resources in the effectiveness of mother and subsideries companies, the second human resources development conference, Tehran, Iran.


8. Bengston, D. N. (2013). Horizon scanning for environmental foresight: a review of issues and approaches. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station.


9. Charmaz, Kathy (2008) What is Grounded Theory? In: NCRM Research Methods Festival 2008.


10. Conteh, C. (2014). Canadian public administration in the 21st century. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Retrieved from ProQuest database.


11. Dadkhah, S., Bayat, R., Fazli, S., Tork, E. K., & Ebrahimi, A. (2018). Corporate foresight: developing a process model. European Journal of Futures Research, 6, 1-10.


12. Danaeifard, Hassan. (2012). Designing National Observatory of Management and Public Policy Lesson- Drawing of Iran: Theoretical Rationale, Operational Conceptualization and its Challenges. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 4(4), 13-25.


13. Drucker, P. (1985) The Discipline of Innovation. Harvard Business Review, 63, 67-73.


14. Farhangi, A., Karoubi, M., & Alvaziri, S. (2015). Classical Grounded Theory; Descriptive Proposed Generation Theory of the Permissible Identity Gravity Center for Iranian Health Tourism. Journal of Business Management, 7 (1), 75-86.


15. Förster, B. (2015). Technology foresight for sustainable production in the German automotive supplier industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 92, 237-248.


16. Gajewski, D. (2012). Chosen Tax-Related and Economic Aspects of Choosing the Method of Equity Financing in Relation to Thin Capitalisation in the Countries of OECD. Contemporary Economics, 6(1), 78-84.


17. Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social problems, 12(4), 436-445.


18. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory Aldine Publishing Company. Hawthorne, New York.


19. Godin, B. (2006). The knowledge-based economy: conceptual framework or buzzword?. The Journal of technology transfer, 31, 17-30.


20. Goold, M., & Quinn, J. J. (1988). Strategic control: a survey of current practice. Working Paper, Ashridge Strategic Management Centre, London.


21. Goold, M., Campbell, A., & Alexander, M. (1994). Corporate level strategy: Creating Value in the Multi Business Company. New York: John Wiley & Sons.


22. Gudarzi, Gholamreza, Azar, Adel, Azizi, Firouze and Babaei Meybodi, Hamid. (2016). Presenting the proposed framework of regional foresight as an interdisciplinary research field: the case study, Yazd Province Aamish Development Document. Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities, 8(2), 133-155.


23. Hasangholipour, H., Gholipour, A., Ghazimahaleh, M. M., & Roshandel Arbatani, T. (2011). Requirements, necessities and mechanisms of knowledge commercializing in Management Schools/Faculties. Journal of Business Management, 2(4).


24. Hasrati, M. (2006). An introduction to the qualitative method of foundational data theorizing. Quarterly of Language & Linguistics, 2(3), 75-86.


25. Hassani, H., Silva, E. S., & Al Kaabi, A. M. (2017). The role of innovation and technology in sustaining the petroleum and petrochemical industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 119, 1-17.


26. Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2003). The dynamic resource‐based view: Capability lifecycles. Strategic management journal, 24(10), 997-1010.


27. Hendry, J. (2000). Strategic decision mking, discourse, and strategy as social practice. Journal of Management studies, 37(7), 955-978.


28. Højland, J., & Rohrbeck, R. (2018). The role of corporate foresight in exploring new markets–evidence from 3 case studies in the BOP markets. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 30(6), 734-746.


29. Hoshdar, F., Soltani, B., Fassihi, S. F., & Tashkori, N. (2019). Provide an improved model for classifying knowledge-based firms in Iran. Strategic Studies of public policy, 9(30), 215-233.


30. Hoskisson, R. E., Eden, L., Lau, C. M., & Wright, M. (2000). Strategy in emerging economies. Academy of management journal, 43(3), 249-267.


31. Hwang, D. (2014). Smart approach to innovative education for 21st century. In International Conference IITE-2014 “New Challenges for Pedagogy and Quality Education: MOOCs, Clouds and Mobiles.


32. Johnson, G., Scholes, K., & Whittington, R. (2002). Exploring Corporate Strategy, Prentice–Hall Financial Times.


33. Karimi, Mojtaba. (2016). The new generation of oil contracts and examining the necessity of establishing a "technology observatory" center in the oil industry. Oil Industry Research Institute, 137, 21-24.


34. Khanifar, Hossein and Nahid, Muslimi. (2016). Principles and basics of qualitative research methods. Tehran, Negah Danesh Publication, Volume 1.


35. Khazaei, Saeed. (2005). Observatory, the gateway to the future. Defense Industries Educational and Research Institute - Future Research Center for Defense Science and Technology.


36. Kuosa, T. (2009). Towards the dynamic paradigm of futures research: how to grasp a complex futures problem with multiple phases and multiple methods.


37. Leibovitz, J. (2004). 'Embryonic'knowledge-based clusters and cities: The case of biotechnology in Scotland. Urban Studies, 41(5-6), 1133-1155.


38. Liebowitz, J. (2001). Knowledge Management: Learning from Knowledge Engineering (1st ed.). CRC Press.


39. Mehrolhassani M, Haghdoost A, Dehnavieh R, Abolhallaje M, Emami M. (2017).The Proposed Framework for Monitoring Health System. Iranian Journal of Epidemiology (irje), 12, 92-96. URL: http://irje.tums.ac.ir/article-1-5644-fa.html.


40. Mofazali, A. S., & Jahangiri, K. (2018). Towards a customized foresight model on “disaster risk management” in developing countries. foresight, 20(5), 467-487.


41. Neagu, C. D. (2008). Knowledge based organization. The Future of Identity in the Information Society: Proceedings of the Third IFIP WG 9.2, 9.6/11.6, 11.7/FIDIS International Summer School on the Future of Identity in the Information Society, Karlstad University, Sweden, August 4-10, 2007, 262, 407.


42. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization science, 5(1), 14-37.


43. Padash, H., Khodapanah, B., & Ebrahimzadeh, M. (2017). The Impact of Institutional Environment on Knowledge-Based Economy. Economics Research, 17(64), 171-198. doi: 10.22054/joer.2017.7672


44. Paliokaité, A. (2010). Industry level foresight: Designing foresight methods for Lithuanian energy sector. Enterprise and Work Innovation Studies, 6, IET, 9 – 51.


45. Pavitt, K. (1984). Sectoral patterns of technical change: towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research policy, 13(6), 343-373.


46. Powell, W. W., & Snellman, K. (2004). The knowledge economy.  Rev. Sociol., 30, 199-220.


47. Ramadan, W. A. (2017). Corporate Future Foresight in Government: A necessity or a luxury? Rochester Institute of Technology. Accessed from, Rochester Institute of Technology, RIT Scholar Works.


48. Ramazan, Majid and Hasnawi, Reza. (2012). Intellectual capital of the organization. Tehran, Atieh Negar Publication.


49. Rohrbeck, R., & Bade, M. (2012, June). Environmental scanning, futures research, strategic foresight and organizational future orientation: a review, integration, and future research directions. In ISPIM Annual Conference.


50. Rohrbeck, R., & Gemünden, H. G. (2011). Corporate foresight: Its three roles in enhancing the innovation capacity of a firm. Technological forecasting and social change, 78(2), 231-243.


51. Rupsiene, L., & Pranskuniene, R. (2010). The variety of grounded theory: Different versions of the same method or different methods. Social Sciences, 4(70), 7-19.


52. Savioz, P. (2003). Technology intelligence: concept design and implementation in technology based SMEs. Springer.


53. Splawn, W. M. (1935). Is the power holding company necessary?.  Land & Pub. Util. Econ., 11, 226.


54. Starbuck, W. H. (1992). Learning by knowledge‐intensive firms. Journal of management Studies, 29(6), 713-740.


55. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 2^nd Edition, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.


56. Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge university press.


57. Tebaldi, E., & Elmslie, B. (2013). Does institutional quality impact innovation? Evidence from cross-country patent grant data. Applied Economics, 45(7), 887-900.


58. The law on supporting knowledge-based companies, approved by the Islamic Council of Iran in 2010 https://rc.majlis.ir/fa/law/show/789035.


59. Vecchiato, R., & Roveda, C. (2010). Foresight in corporate organisations. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 22(1), 99-112.


60. Voros, J. (2003). A generic foresight process framework. Foresight, 5(3), 10-21.


61. Wyrwicka, M. K., & Erdeli, O. (2018). Strategic foresight as the methodology of preparing innovation activities.