动态环境下的企业IT价值创造过程
|
摘要
随着因特网及衍生的电子商务技术的出现,企业的分销渠道和相关的商业模式和商务活动都将受到影响。电子商务在企业和渠道伙伴间的应用,使企业的渠道管理和营销行为呈现出新的特点,能够更深入地感知市场动态和客户需求,因此给企业提供了获得新的价值创造机会。然而,随着IT与企业间商务流程的嵌套,当前许多用来检验IT价值的商务模型常表现出与不断变化的商业现实的不同步性。一个重要的原因在于许多企业管理者并不能有效地剥离IT技术与传统的商务功能,不能明晰IT是如何通过影响企业各种商务活动,进而帮助企业创造价值。同时,当前企业仍旧将优化传统业务流程作为使用IT的主要目的,并没有从战略竞争的角度合理有效地进行IT应用,也因此不能明晰IT是如何通过响应动态市场,进而帮助企业创造价值。与此同时,许多企业在展开企业间IT应用时,忽视了对企业间因素在实施新技术过程中的协调控制,加之市场环境的动荡,企业似乎无法将基于IT的动态能力与变化的市场实现有效地契合,从而导致电子商务的实施效果不甚理想。由此可见,在动态环境下,企业间通过IT应用创造价值的过程涵盖了商务提升、企业间管理、环境适配等多个难以控制的机制,本文则试图明晰这一复杂的过程,来帮助企业管理者更清楚地了解动态环境下的IT价值创造路径。
信息系统领域、供应链领域和营销领域的学者针对这一议题也已开始了相关的研究。IS领域的学者关注到单个企业和企业间的相关变量对价值产生的直接作用,如IT资源、能力及其它互补性因素等,偏重IT在企业间合作流程中削减流程成本、优化流程结构的作用,而忽视了IT对改善合作关系、应对市场变化等商务功能的变革作用。供应链领域和营销领域对企业间IT应用的研究更关注于提升企业交流、协同和治理商务的交互行为,以及对企业获取竞争优势的影响,关系结构也出现了交互或调节的作用关系。但是,由于各自领域研究角度的限制,尚未从IT技术、企业间管理与市场环境的整合视角研究企业IT价值的形成过程,未能认知技术能力向动态能力转化过程中复杂的协调控制关系和关联作用规律,因而表现出与不断变化的商业实践的不同步性,也无法全面揭示企业间如何利用IT展开竞争行为以及在什么条件下创造价值。
本研究首先对当前IT价值的主要构念和研究范式进行梳理,对当前研究进展和分析逻辑进行总结,尤其是针对企业间IT应用研究分别从IS领域、供应链领域和营销领域的主要议题进行综述,分析当前主流的研究特点以及局限性。在此基础上,总结了与企业间IT价值创造相关的主要理论,包括动态能力理论、扩展的资源基础理论和权变理论,进而提出本研究的研究框架。
本研究提出由IT竞争力、动态能力和竞争绩效二个结构维度以及关系治理、市场环境两个调节维度构成的研究框架。其中IT竞争力主要反映企业间IT应用的技术特征,包括流程合作能力和知识共享能力：动态能力则强调企业感知和响应动态市场的商务特征,包括关系能力、企业敏捷和运作创新。该框架试图探究企业通过IT嵌入合作流程形成IT竞争力后,如何形成适应不断变化市场的动态能力,展开竞争活动,进而提升企业的竞争绩效。研究框架将动态环境下的IT价值创造过程共分为两个阶段：动态能力的形成阶段和竞争绩效的形成阶段,分别代表了企业间的IT应用过程和市场竞争过程。具体地,动态能力的形成阶段体现为IT竞争力和动态能力两个维度之间的转换过程,涵盖了企业在新兴IT技术下,技术能力和动态能力之间的转化关系,反映了技术能力对商务环节的变革作用,其中纳入调节维度企业间关系治理探究其对该过程的权变影响；竞争绩效的形成阶段则重点描述动态能力产生竞争绩效的关联作用关系,并纳入市场环境维度,考量动态能力和环境的适配机制,揭示企业如何在动态的市场环境中利用动态能力展开竞争行为,进而创造价值。
依据研究框架,提出本研究的三个实证研究内容：动态环境下的企业IT价值创造过程的阶段特征和作用机制、关系治理在企业间IT应用过程中的调节作用机制,以及动态能力和市场环境的适配作用机制,并根据研究内容分别提出相应的理论假设。
本研究基于184家企业的调查数据,采用OLS回归方法分阶段分析动态能力的形成过程和竞争绩效的产生过程,通过偏最小二乘PLS建模方法对企业价值创造路径进行整体分析：采用调节效应分析,分别验证企业间关系治理和市场环境对企业间IT应用过程和市场竞争过程的权变影响。主要得出以下三个方面的研究结论：
1、动态环境下的IT价值创造路径包括两个阶段：动态能力的形成阶段和竞争绩效的形成阶段,分别描述了企业间的IT应用过程和市场竞争过程。这两个阶段前后衔接,揭示了企业从IT技术应用到IT的商务效果直至价值创造的过程。具体地,动态能力的形成阶段体现为流程合作能力和知识共享能力对关系能力、企业敏捷和运作创新的直接作用关系,这一过程反映了企业间IT应用过程中技术能力对动态能力的变革作用机制,其中知识共享能力在该转化过程中起到了核心作用；竞争绩效的形成阶段则重点描述了企业的关系能力、企业敏捷和运作创新对竞争绩效的直接作用关系。该结论证明了企业需要通过流程合作和知识共享,构建企业IT竞争力,进而促进企业间协同,提升企业对外部市场的敏捷能力,以及企业自身的运作创新能力,最终产生价值的作用关系。该结论重新界定了IT使能的企业电子商务变革效应以及在动态环境中获取价值的路径,体现了动态能力作为关键中介能力的变革和动态作用特征,较全面地反映了动态环境下的IT价值创造的阶段特征和作用机制。
2、企业间IT应用过程中,企业间关系治理对流程合作能力具有调节作用,并促进了流程合作能力在IT应用过程中对关系能力和企业敏捷的直接作用。该结论从企业间关系的独特视角,论证了关系治理对动态能力形成过程的影响,区别于当前以企业内生能力为主的动态能力研究,为解释动态能力的形成过程增添了新的研究思路。同时,结论也印证了诸多理论对于企业间合作关系作用的阐述,如关系理论提出组织的关键资源可能会在组织边界之外,企业与伙伴如果做一些特定关系资产投资,并且以统一的方式整合资源,就能够提高价值链的生产率,因此这种联系有可能成为竞争优势的来源；扩展的资源基础理论认为合作关系可以通过整合参与合作企业所拥有的独特能力或者特权来创造出新的稀缺的和不可模仿的能力。而从实证结果看,关系治理既是企业间IT应用过程的催化剂,也是动态能力的直接使能者。这表明了伙伴关系的维持和发展,有利于建立稳定的企业间战略合作联盟,帮助企业通过合作关系获取伙伴的各种有价资源,以响应不断变化的市场。
3、本文通过分别验证产品复杂和市场竞争对动态能力的调节效应发现,产品复杂促进了企业敏捷对竞争绩效的正向作用,市场竞争抑制了关系能力对竞争绩效的正向作用,而促进了运作创新对竞争绩效的正向作用。该结论证实了动态能力和市场环境之间存在一种适配作用机制,影响着企业IT价值的形成。其特征表现在不同动态能力在不同的市场环境下对竞争绩效存在不同的作用效果。
这种针对不同商务流程的复杂的权变影响在先前的研究中并未被研究者认识到,是本研究的首次发现。虽然先前已有部分学者研究了环境因素对价值的权变影响,如Eve D.Rosenzweig针对产品复杂、环境丰富和市场变动对企业电子化合作的权变作用进行了实证研究；Karthik等人发现了需求不确定性、产品动荡和B2B供应链整合三方交互对企业绩效具有负面影响。但这些研究主要围绕着企业IT应用过程探究市场环境的调节作用,而本研究将价值创造过程划分为企业间IT应用过程和市场竞争过程,纳入的产品复杂和市场竞争两个环境变量主要作用于市场竞争过程,事实上,企业的竞争活动与市场波动更加紧密和具有关联性,且对企业管理者更加具有实践指导意义。
本研究的创新点主要表现为：
1、本研究将基于IT的能力区分为表示IT功能的IT竞争力和表示商务功能的动态能力,从而深入剖分IT竞争力和动态能力之间的转换过程,重新界定了IT使能的企业电子商务变革效应以及在动态环境中获取价值的路径,并同时考虑了企业间关系治理和市场环境两个调节维度对价值形成过程的权变影响,诠释了企业间技术应用、战略竞争、关系治理以及环境适配等多种复杂的行为特征。本研究框架不仅突破了当前以业务流程优化为IT应用核心的单一研究模式,同时也拓展了当前IT价值研究模型在动态环境中的应用。
2、本研究创新性地引入不同类型的动态能力作为企业价值创造的重要中介维度,并通过实证分析论证了以关系能力、企业敏捷和运作创新为核心的具有下游渠道销售特征的动态能力对价值创造的作用关系。虽然当前不少研究认可了动态能力和企业竞争优势之间的关系,但缺乏足够的实证证据加以验证,相关研究多以IT灵活性或供应链敏捷等某一角度探究企业如何通过IT响应市场变化。本研究从IT的战略应用角度,基于动态能力的三类主要特征进行变量选择和设计,体现企业间IT应用在不同方面的商务变革作用,不仅丰富了动态能力理论的相关研究,同时对于企业管理者剖析IT价值获取的来源路径更具有重要的创新意义。
3、本研究纳入了产品复杂和市场竞争两个环境调节变量,发现市场环境对企业的竞争活动既有正向的促进作用,也有负向的抑制作用。在产品复杂和市场竞争较高的市场环境下,企业需要积极发展敏捷和创新能力,将促进形成企业的竞争绩效;而企业的关系能力在市场竞争强度较高的环境下,其对竞争绩效的作用却会受到抑制。该结论不仅丰富了先前研究关于市场环境对绩效作用的相关结论,也是首次关注到市场环境和不同层面的动态能力之间的适配作用,更突出了市场环境自身的复杂特性对企业展开竞争活动所带来的诸多不确定性,从动态的角度阐述了不同动态能力在不同环境下的适配过程,在理论和实践中都具有重要的创新意义。
本研究是对企业下游渠道中与渠道销售伙伴合作创造价值过程的新探索,通过揭示商务能力的IT化过程,不仅扩展了当前电子商务价值理论的研究,将IT技术与商务管理有机地结合在一起,同时考虑了合作环境下企业间关系治理以及产品复杂和市场竞争等环境因素的调节作用,丰富了当前合作价值及其竞争优势的相关研究,具有重要的学术价值。与此同时,本文通过大量的案例调查,紧密地接触到我国供应链下游企业的管理实践,研究结论更具有管理实践意义,通过剖析企业与下游伙伴之间的IT应用过程和市场竞争过程,对促进我国相关行业的电子商务发展具有十分重要的指导意义。
As internet and ebusiness technology appear, firms" distribution channel and related business activities will be influnced. The application of ebusiness among firms and their channel partners makes the channel management and marketing take on many new characteristics and respond to dynamic market and customer demand and then get the new value. However, as IT embedded into related business activities more closely, many business models about IT value can't reflect the reality of business. Managers can't divide the information technology from traditional business function and can't know clearly how IT influences all kinds of business activities and then gain competitive advantage. Meanwhile, firms usually omit the leveraging control in the process of applying new technology when firms make IT application among firms. Also with dynamic environment, it seems that firms couldn't make a fit between IT-based business capabilities and dynamic market. So the process of gaining competitive advantage covers a chain of mechanisms to control difficultely, including business improvement, interfirm management and respond to environment. The target of this study is to probe into such a complex process, to help managers understand the creative path of competitive advantage.
Part of research to this topic has been appeared in IS field, supply chain field and marketing field. The research in IS field focused on the direct effect of related variables of single firm and firms, such as IT resources, IT capability and other complementary factors. These research emphasize the effects of IT on decreasing process cost and optimizing process structure in inter collaborative process but omit the effects on improving collaborative relationship and reacting environment. The research in supply chain field and marketing field focus on the effect of IT on improving interfirm communication and cooperation and interactive relationship began to appear in research. But these researches haven't explored the creative process of business value of IT from the perspective of integration of IT, interfirm relationship and environment. Some complex leveraging control and relationship in the transiting process between technology capability and business capability cann't be known. Many managers can't indicate how and when firms gain competitive advantage by applying IT.
This study summarizes the main research mode of business value of IT and research on interfirm IT application from IS field, supply chain field and marketing field, and analyzes the main characteristics and limitation. And then the study summarizes some main therories on business value of IT, including dynamic capability view, extended resource-based view and contingency theory, and finaly constructs the research framework.
The research framework is made up of IT compentency, dynamic capability, competitive advantage, relationship governance and market environment. The whole framework is divided into two stages:the creative stage of dynamic capability and the creative stage of competitive performance. Specificly, the creative stage of dynamic capability describes the transformative process from IT competency to dynamic capability, covers the relationship between technology capabitily and business capability and reflects the innovated effect of techonogy to businesss activities; The creative stage of competitive performance focuses on the relationship of creating value by dynamic capability and the fit with environment. It indicates how firms can use dynamic capability to make competitive actions in dynamic environment.
Based on the practice of inter firm collaborative ebusiness, this research framework proves the transformative process from IT competency to emergent business capability and then creates competitive performance from the perspecitive of information, knowledge and relationship. It rethinks the path of gaining value by IT-enablcd ebusiness innovation under dynamic environment. It has innovativeness in structure and variables. From the structure, the transformative process between IT compentency and dynamic capability indicates the innovation and dynamic effects of these inmediated capabilties; From the variables, the interactive and sharing effects of IT extends the traditional meaning to explain the process of intcrfirm IT application from a new perspective. Therefore, this new framework can reflect such a complex process in the round.
Next, three empirical content based on the research framework are presented:the stage characteristics and mechanism of the creative process of competitive performance by interfirm IT application, the moderating effect of relationship governance on the process of interfirm IT application and the fit mechanism between dynamic capability and environment.
Based on survey datas from184firms, this study used OLS regression analysis to examine the creative stage of dynamic capability and the creative stage of competitive performance, and then used PI.S to prove the whole creative path of firms" competitive performance. Finally, this study analysed the moderating effect of relationship governance (in the process of interfirm IT application) and market environment (in the market competitive process). The main results are shown as below:
1. The creative process of interfirm business value of IT in dynamic environment is made up of two stages:the creative stage of dynamic capability (interfirm IT application process) and the creative stage of competitive performance (market competitive process). Specificly, the creative stage of dynamic capability describes the transformative process from process collaborative capability and knowledge sharing capability to relational capability, firm agility and operational innovation. It reflects the innovative mechanism of technology capability to business capability in the process of interfirm IT application. The creative stage of competitive performance focuses on the relationship between emergent business capabitliy and competitive performance and the fit between business capabitliy and environment in this process. This result proved the transformative relationship from IT competency to emergent business capabitliy and the process of gaining competitive performance, emphasized the mediating effect of emergent business capabilities.
2. There exists a moderating effect of interfirm relationship government to process collaborative capabitliy and it improves the effect on rational capabitliy and firm agility from process collaborative capabitliy in the process of IT application. This result supported the agreement about interfirm collaborative relationship in many theories, for example, relational view indicated that the key resource may exist outside of organizasional boundry and if firm makes some investment on specific relational assets and integrates inner and outer resources, it will increase the productive efficiency on value-chain as such relationship may become the source of competitive performance; Resource-base view indicated that collaborative relationship can create scarce and inimitable capabitliy by integrating specifice capabitliy and resource of partners. From the results, we can find that partner relationship is not only the catalysator of interfirm IT application, but also has the direct effect on emergent business capabitliy. It indicates that the formation and development of partner relationship is good for steady interfirm strategy alinement and gaining all kinds of valuable resources from collaborative partner.
3. From the moderating analysis of product complex and market competence, it is found that product complex improves the positive effect from firm agility to competitive perfonnance and market competence restrains the positive effect of relational capabitliy and improves the positive effect of operational innovation on competitive perfonnance. This result proved that there exists a fit mechanism to influence the creation of competitive and it embodys that different business capabilities will have different effects on competitive performance under different market environment.
Such a complex contingency influence focusing on different business process hasn't been presented in prior research. That's the first discover in my research though some research mentioned the contingency effect of environment. For example, Eve D. Rosenzweig did some research on the contingency effect from product complex, environment munificence and market variability on firm's e-collaboration; Karthik N.S. lye et al. found that the interaction of demand uncertainty, product turbulence and B2B supply chain integration has a neglect effect on firm perfonnance.
The innovativenesses of this studv are summarized as below:
1. This study divied the business capability from technology capabitliy and analysed their relationship and its effect on competitive performance, probe into the complex process of value creation in dynamic environment. Meanwhile, we added two moderating variables:relationshipo governance and market environment and explain the complex traits of interfinn IT application, strategic competitive actions, relationship governance and environment fit. Such a framework extends the prior research mode which focus on operational process.
2. This study added the key mediating variables of dynamic capaibities of three kinds and analyzes the relationship from relational capability, firm agility and operational innovation to value creation. Although prior research has much aggrement on the relationship between dynamic capability and competitive advantage, it still lacks enough empirical research to support them. And much research mainly focus on IT flexibility or supply chain agilty to examine how firms can respond the change of market. This study chooses three main traits of dynamic capability to stand different aspects of business innovation by IT application. It extends the research of dynamic capability and has innmovative implication for managers to understand the complex path of value creation.
3. This study considered the moderating effects of product complex and market competency and found market environment has not only positive effect but also negative effect on performance. This result enriched prior results of some research on market environment and perfonnance and highlighted the complex traits of market environment and the fit process of different business capabitliy.
This study is a new exploration on co-creation process between firms and downstream channel partners. It extends the prior research by combining IT technology and business management and emphasized the moderating effects of interfinn relationship governance and market competency. Meanwhile, this study focused on Chinese new supply chain management with ebusiness technology and it will be good for summarizing the mechanism of value creation and improving industry structure optimization.
信息系统领域、供应链领域和营销领域的学者针对这一议题也已开始了相关的研究。IS领域的学者关注到单个企业和企业间的相关变量对价值产生的直接作用,如IT资源、能力及其它互补性因素等,偏重IT在企业间合作流程中削减流程成本、优化流程结构的作用,而忽视了IT对改善合作关系、应对市场变化等商务功能的变革作用。供应链领域和营销领域对企业间IT应用的研究更关注于提升企业交流、协同和治理商务的交互行为,以及对企业获取竞争优势的影响,关系结构也出现了交互或调节的作用关系。但是,由于各自领域研究角度的限制,尚未从IT技术、企业间管理与市场环境的整合视角研究企业IT价值的形成过程,未能认知技术能力向动态能力转化过程中复杂的协调控制关系和关联作用规律,因而表现出与不断变化的商业实践的不同步性,也无法全面揭示企业间如何利用IT展开竞争行为以及在什么条件下创造价值。
本研究首先对当前IT价值的主要构念和研究范式进行梳理,对当前研究进展和分析逻辑进行总结,尤其是针对企业间IT应用研究分别从IS领域、供应链领域和营销领域的主要议题进行综述,分析当前主流的研究特点以及局限性。在此基础上,总结了与企业间IT价值创造相关的主要理论,包括动态能力理论、扩展的资源基础理论和权变理论,进而提出本研究的研究框架。
本研究提出由IT竞争力、动态能力和竞争绩效二个结构维度以及关系治理、市场环境两个调节维度构成的研究框架。其中IT竞争力主要反映企业间IT应用的技术特征,包括流程合作能力和知识共享能力：动态能力则强调企业感知和响应动态市场的商务特征,包括关系能力、企业敏捷和运作创新。该框架试图探究企业通过IT嵌入合作流程形成IT竞争力后,如何形成适应不断变化市场的动态能力,展开竞争活动,进而提升企业的竞争绩效。研究框架将动态环境下的IT价值创造过程共分为两个阶段：动态能力的形成阶段和竞争绩效的形成阶段,分别代表了企业间的IT应用过程和市场竞争过程。具体地,动态能力的形成阶段体现为IT竞争力和动态能力两个维度之间的转换过程,涵盖了企业在新兴IT技术下,技术能力和动态能力之间的转化关系,反映了技术能力对商务环节的变革作用,其中纳入调节维度企业间关系治理探究其对该过程的权变影响；竞争绩效的形成阶段则重点描述动态能力产生竞争绩效的关联作用关系,并纳入市场环境维度,考量动态能力和环境的适配机制,揭示企业如何在动态的市场环境中利用动态能力展开竞争行为,进而创造价值。
依据研究框架,提出本研究的三个实证研究内容：动态环境下的企业IT价值创造过程的阶段特征和作用机制、关系治理在企业间IT应用过程中的调节作用机制,以及动态能力和市场环境的适配作用机制,并根据研究内容分别提出相应的理论假设。
本研究基于184家企业的调查数据,采用OLS回归方法分阶段分析动态能力的形成过程和竞争绩效的产生过程,通过偏最小二乘PLS建模方法对企业价值创造路径进行整体分析：采用调节效应分析,分别验证企业间关系治理和市场环境对企业间IT应用过程和市场竞争过程的权变影响。主要得出以下三个方面的研究结论：
1、动态环境下的IT价值创造路径包括两个阶段：动态能力的形成阶段和竞争绩效的形成阶段,分别描述了企业间的IT应用过程和市场竞争过程。这两个阶段前后衔接,揭示了企业从IT技术应用到IT的商务效果直至价值创造的过程。具体地,动态能力的形成阶段体现为流程合作能力和知识共享能力对关系能力、企业敏捷和运作创新的直接作用关系,这一过程反映了企业间IT应用过程中技术能力对动态能力的变革作用机制,其中知识共享能力在该转化过程中起到了核心作用；竞争绩效的形成阶段则重点描述了企业的关系能力、企业敏捷和运作创新对竞争绩效的直接作用关系。该结论证明了企业需要通过流程合作和知识共享,构建企业IT竞争力,进而促进企业间协同,提升企业对外部市场的敏捷能力,以及企业自身的运作创新能力,最终产生价值的作用关系。该结论重新界定了IT使能的企业电子商务变革效应以及在动态环境中获取价值的路径,体现了动态能力作为关键中介能力的变革和动态作用特征,较全面地反映了动态环境下的IT价值创造的阶段特征和作用机制。
2、企业间IT应用过程中,企业间关系治理对流程合作能力具有调节作用,并促进了流程合作能力在IT应用过程中对关系能力和企业敏捷的直接作用。该结论从企业间关系的独特视角,论证了关系治理对动态能力形成过程的影响,区别于当前以企业内生能力为主的动态能力研究,为解释动态能力的形成过程增添了新的研究思路。同时,结论也印证了诸多理论对于企业间合作关系作用的阐述,如关系理论提出组织的关键资源可能会在组织边界之外,企业与伙伴如果做一些特定关系资产投资,并且以统一的方式整合资源,就能够提高价值链的生产率,因此这种联系有可能成为竞争优势的来源；扩展的资源基础理论认为合作关系可以通过整合参与合作企业所拥有的独特能力或者特权来创造出新的稀缺的和不可模仿的能力。而从实证结果看,关系治理既是企业间IT应用过程的催化剂,也是动态能力的直接使能者。这表明了伙伴关系的维持和发展,有利于建立稳定的企业间战略合作联盟,帮助企业通过合作关系获取伙伴的各种有价资源,以响应不断变化的市场。
3、本文通过分别验证产品复杂和市场竞争对动态能力的调节效应发现,产品复杂促进了企业敏捷对竞争绩效的正向作用,市场竞争抑制了关系能力对竞争绩效的正向作用,而促进了运作创新对竞争绩效的正向作用。该结论证实了动态能力和市场环境之间存在一种适配作用机制,影响着企业IT价值的形成。其特征表现在不同动态能力在不同的市场环境下对竞争绩效存在不同的作用效果。
这种针对不同商务流程的复杂的权变影响在先前的研究中并未被研究者认识到,是本研究的首次发现。虽然先前已有部分学者研究了环境因素对价值的权变影响,如Eve D.Rosenzweig针对产品复杂、环境丰富和市场变动对企业电子化合作的权变作用进行了实证研究；Karthik等人发现了需求不确定性、产品动荡和B2B供应链整合三方交互对企业绩效具有负面影响。但这些研究主要围绕着企业IT应用过程探究市场环境的调节作用,而本研究将价值创造过程划分为企业间IT应用过程和市场竞争过程,纳入的产品复杂和市场竞争两个环境变量主要作用于市场竞争过程,事实上,企业的竞争活动与市场波动更加紧密和具有关联性,且对企业管理者更加具有实践指导意义。
本研究的创新点主要表现为：
1、本研究将基于IT的能力区分为表示IT功能的IT竞争力和表示商务功能的动态能力,从而深入剖分IT竞争力和动态能力之间的转换过程,重新界定了IT使能的企业电子商务变革效应以及在动态环境中获取价值的路径,并同时考虑了企业间关系治理和市场环境两个调节维度对价值形成过程的权变影响,诠释了企业间技术应用、战略竞争、关系治理以及环境适配等多种复杂的行为特征。本研究框架不仅突破了当前以业务流程优化为IT应用核心的单一研究模式,同时也拓展了当前IT价值研究模型在动态环境中的应用。
2、本研究创新性地引入不同类型的动态能力作为企业价值创造的重要中介维度,并通过实证分析论证了以关系能力、企业敏捷和运作创新为核心的具有下游渠道销售特征的动态能力对价值创造的作用关系。虽然当前不少研究认可了动态能力和企业竞争优势之间的关系,但缺乏足够的实证证据加以验证,相关研究多以IT灵活性或供应链敏捷等某一角度探究企业如何通过IT响应市场变化。本研究从IT的战略应用角度,基于动态能力的三类主要特征进行变量选择和设计,体现企业间IT应用在不同方面的商务变革作用,不仅丰富了动态能力理论的相关研究,同时对于企业管理者剖析IT价值获取的来源路径更具有重要的创新意义。
3、本研究纳入了产品复杂和市场竞争两个环境调节变量,发现市场环境对企业的竞争活动既有正向的促进作用,也有负向的抑制作用。在产品复杂和市场竞争较高的市场环境下,企业需要积极发展敏捷和创新能力,将促进形成企业的竞争绩效;而企业的关系能力在市场竞争强度较高的环境下,其对竞争绩效的作用却会受到抑制。该结论不仅丰富了先前研究关于市场环境对绩效作用的相关结论,也是首次关注到市场环境和不同层面的动态能力之间的适配作用,更突出了市场环境自身的复杂特性对企业展开竞争活动所带来的诸多不确定性,从动态的角度阐述了不同动态能力在不同环境下的适配过程,在理论和实践中都具有重要的创新意义。
本研究是对企业下游渠道中与渠道销售伙伴合作创造价值过程的新探索,通过揭示商务能力的IT化过程,不仅扩展了当前电子商务价值理论的研究,将IT技术与商务管理有机地结合在一起,同时考虑了合作环境下企业间关系治理以及产品复杂和市场竞争等环境因素的调节作用,丰富了当前合作价值及其竞争优势的相关研究,具有重要的学术价值。与此同时,本文通过大量的案例调查,紧密地接触到我国供应链下游企业的管理实践,研究结论更具有管理实践意义,通过剖析企业与下游伙伴之间的IT应用过程和市场竞争过程,对促进我国相关行业的电子商务发展具有十分重要的指导意义。
As internet and ebusiness technology appear, firms" distribution channel and related business activities will be influnced. The application of ebusiness among firms and their channel partners makes the channel management and marketing take on many new characteristics and respond to dynamic market and customer demand and then get the new value. However, as IT embedded into related business activities more closely, many business models about IT value can't reflect the reality of business. Managers can't divide the information technology from traditional business function and can't know clearly how IT influences all kinds of business activities and then gain competitive advantage. Meanwhile, firms usually omit the leveraging control in the process of applying new technology when firms make IT application among firms. Also with dynamic environment, it seems that firms couldn't make a fit between IT-based business capabilities and dynamic market. So the process of gaining competitive advantage covers a chain of mechanisms to control difficultely, including business improvement, interfirm management and respond to environment. The target of this study is to probe into such a complex process, to help managers understand the creative path of competitive advantage.
Part of research to this topic has been appeared in IS field, supply chain field and marketing field. The research in IS field focused on the direct effect of related variables of single firm and firms, such as IT resources, IT capability and other complementary factors. These research emphasize the effects of IT on decreasing process cost and optimizing process structure in inter collaborative process but omit the effects on improving collaborative relationship and reacting environment. The research in supply chain field and marketing field focus on the effect of IT on improving interfirm communication and cooperation and interactive relationship began to appear in research. But these researches haven't explored the creative process of business value of IT from the perspective of integration of IT, interfirm relationship and environment. Some complex leveraging control and relationship in the transiting process between technology capability and business capability cann't be known. Many managers can't indicate how and when firms gain competitive advantage by applying IT.
This study summarizes the main research mode of business value of IT and research on interfirm IT application from IS field, supply chain field and marketing field, and analyzes the main characteristics and limitation. And then the study summarizes some main therories on business value of IT, including dynamic capability view, extended resource-based view and contingency theory, and finaly constructs the research framework.
The research framework is made up of IT compentency, dynamic capability, competitive advantage, relationship governance and market environment. The whole framework is divided into two stages:the creative stage of dynamic capability and the creative stage of competitive performance. Specificly, the creative stage of dynamic capability describes the transformative process from IT competency to dynamic capability, covers the relationship between technology capabitily and business capability and reflects the innovated effect of techonogy to businesss activities; The creative stage of competitive performance focuses on the relationship of creating value by dynamic capability and the fit with environment. It indicates how firms can use dynamic capability to make competitive actions in dynamic environment.
Based on the practice of inter firm collaborative ebusiness, this research framework proves the transformative process from IT competency to emergent business capability and then creates competitive performance from the perspecitive of information, knowledge and relationship. It rethinks the path of gaining value by IT-enablcd ebusiness innovation under dynamic environment. It has innovativeness in structure and variables. From the structure, the transformative process between IT compentency and dynamic capability indicates the innovation and dynamic effects of these inmediated capabilties; From the variables, the interactive and sharing effects of IT extends the traditional meaning to explain the process of intcrfirm IT application from a new perspective. Therefore, this new framework can reflect such a complex process in the round.
Next, three empirical content based on the research framework are presented:the stage characteristics and mechanism of the creative process of competitive performance by interfirm IT application, the moderating effect of relationship governance on the process of interfirm IT application and the fit mechanism between dynamic capability and environment.
Based on survey datas from184firms, this study used OLS regression analysis to examine the creative stage of dynamic capability and the creative stage of competitive performance, and then used PI.S to prove the whole creative path of firms" competitive performance. Finally, this study analysed the moderating effect of relationship governance (in the process of interfirm IT application) and market environment (in the market competitive process). The main results are shown as below:
1. The creative process of interfirm business value of IT in dynamic environment is made up of two stages:the creative stage of dynamic capability (interfirm IT application process) and the creative stage of competitive performance (market competitive process). Specificly, the creative stage of dynamic capability describes the transformative process from process collaborative capability and knowledge sharing capability to relational capability, firm agility and operational innovation. It reflects the innovative mechanism of technology capability to business capability in the process of interfirm IT application. The creative stage of competitive performance focuses on the relationship between emergent business capabitliy and competitive performance and the fit between business capabitliy and environment in this process. This result proved the transformative relationship from IT competency to emergent business capabitliy and the process of gaining competitive performance, emphasized the mediating effect of emergent business capabilities.
2. There exists a moderating effect of interfirm relationship government to process collaborative capabitliy and it improves the effect on rational capabitliy and firm agility from process collaborative capabitliy in the process of IT application. This result supported the agreement about interfirm collaborative relationship in many theories, for example, relational view indicated that the key resource may exist outside of organizasional boundry and if firm makes some investment on specific relational assets and integrates inner and outer resources, it will increase the productive efficiency on value-chain as such relationship may become the source of competitive performance; Resource-base view indicated that collaborative relationship can create scarce and inimitable capabitliy by integrating specifice capabitliy and resource of partners. From the results, we can find that partner relationship is not only the catalysator of interfirm IT application, but also has the direct effect on emergent business capabitliy. It indicates that the formation and development of partner relationship is good for steady interfirm strategy alinement and gaining all kinds of valuable resources from collaborative partner.
3. From the moderating analysis of product complex and market competence, it is found that product complex improves the positive effect from firm agility to competitive perfonnance and market competence restrains the positive effect of relational capabitliy and improves the positive effect of operational innovation on competitive perfonnance. This result proved that there exists a fit mechanism to influence the creation of competitive and it embodys that different business capabilities will have different effects on competitive performance under different market environment.
Such a complex contingency influence focusing on different business process hasn't been presented in prior research. That's the first discover in my research though some research mentioned the contingency effect of environment. For example, Eve D. Rosenzweig did some research on the contingency effect from product complex, environment munificence and market variability on firm's e-collaboration; Karthik N.S. lye et al. found that the interaction of demand uncertainty, product turbulence and B2B supply chain integration has a neglect effect on firm perfonnance.
The innovativenesses of this studv are summarized as below:
1. This study divied the business capability from technology capabitliy and analysed their relationship and its effect on competitive performance, probe into the complex process of value creation in dynamic environment. Meanwhile, we added two moderating variables:relationshipo governance and market environment and explain the complex traits of interfinn IT application, strategic competitive actions, relationship governance and environment fit. Such a framework extends the prior research mode which focus on operational process.
2. This study added the key mediating variables of dynamic capaibities of three kinds and analyzes the relationship from relational capability, firm agility and operational innovation to value creation. Although prior research has much aggrement on the relationship between dynamic capability and competitive advantage, it still lacks enough empirical research to support them. And much research mainly focus on IT flexibility or supply chain agilty to examine how firms can respond the change of market. This study chooses three main traits of dynamic capability to stand different aspects of business innovation by IT application. It extends the research of dynamic capability and has innmovative implication for managers to understand the complex path of value creation.
3. This study considered the moderating effects of product complex and market competency and found market environment has not only positive effect but also negative effect on performance. This result enriched prior results of some research on market environment and perfonnance and highlighted the complex traits of market environment and the fit process of different business capabitliy.
This study is a new exploration on co-creation process between firms and downstream channel partners. It extends the prior research by combining IT technology and business management and emphasized the moderating effects of interfinn relationship governance and market competency. Meanwhile, this study focused on Chinese new supply chain management with ebusiness technology and it will be good for summarizing the mechanism of value creation and improving industry structure optimization.
引文
[1]Clemons E K, Row M C. Sustaining IT advantage:the role of structural differences. MIS quarterly,1991:275-292.
[2]Floyd S W, Wooldridge B. Path analysis of the relationship between competitive strategy, information technology, and financial performance. Journal of Management Information Systems,1990,7(1):47-64.
[3]Powell T C, Dent-Micallef A. Information technology as competitive advantage:the role of human, business, and technology resources. Strategic management journal,1997,18(5): 375-405.
[4]Kohli R, Grover V. Business value of IT:an essay on expanding research directions to keep up with the times. Journal of the association for information systems,2008,9(1):23-39.
[5]Somogyi E K, Galliers R D. Applied information technology:from data processing to strategic information systems. Journal of Information Technology,1987,2(1):30-41.
[6]Bharadwaj A S. A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm performance:an empirical investigation. MIS quarterly,2000:169-196.
[7]Lavie D. The competitive advantage of interconnected firms:An extension of the resource-based view. Academy of management review,2006,31(3):638-658.
[8]Teece D J, Pisano G, Shuen A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic management journal,1997,18(7):509-533.
[9]Teece D J. Explicating dynamic capabilities:the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic management journal,2007,28(13):1319-1350.
[10]Pavlou P A, El Sawy O A. The "third hand":IT-enabled competitive advantage in turbulence through improvisational capabilities. Information Systems Research,2010,21(3):443-471.
[11]Tallon P P. Inside the adaptive enterprise:an information technology capabilities perspective on business process agility. Information Technology and Management,2008,9(1):21-36.
[12]Ravichandran T, Troy N. IT competencies, innovation capacity and organizational agility: Performance impacts and the moderating effects of environmental characteristics. 见(In): Conf. Inform. Systems Tech., INFORMS, Baltimore.2007.
[13]Sambamurthy V, Bharadwaj A, Grover V. Shaping agility through digital options: Reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms. MIS quarterly, 2003:237-263.
[14]Swafford P M, Ghosh S, Murthy N. Achieving supply chain agility through IT integration and flexibility. International Journal of Production Economics,2008,116(2):288-297.
[15]Grover V, Saeed K A. The impact of product, market, and relationship characteristics on interorganizational system integration in manufacturer-supplier dyads. Journal of Management Information Systems,2007,23(4):185-216.
[16]Klein R, Rai A. Interfirm strategic information flows in logistics supply chain relationships. MIS quarterly,2009,33(4):735-762.
[17]Devaraj S, Krajewski L, Wei J C. Impact of eBusiness technologies on operational performance: the role of production information integration in the supply chain. Journal of Operations Management,2007,25(6):1199-1216.
[18]Rosenzweig E D. A contingent view of e-collaboration and performance in manufacturing. Journal of Operations Management,2009,27(6):462-478.
[19]Krishnan M, Rai A, Zmud R. Editorial Overview The Digitally Enabled Extended Enterprise in a Global Economy. Information Systems Research,2007,18(3):233.
[20]Melville N, Kraemer K, Gurbaxani V. Review:Information technology and organizational performance:An integrative model of IT business value. MIS quarterly,2004,28(2): 283-322.
[21]Wade M, Hulland J. Review:The resource-based view and information systems research: Review, extension, and suggestions for future research. MIS quarterly,2004,28(1):107-142.
[22]Rai A, Tang X. Leveraging IT capabilities and competitive process capabilities for the management of interorganizational relationship portfolios. Information Systems Research, 2010,21(3):516-542.
[23]Carr N G. IT doesn't matter. Educause Review,2003,38:24-38.
[24]Baker J, Song J, Jones D. Refining the IT business value model:evidence from a longitudinal investigation of healthcare firms.2008.
[25]Davern M J, Wilkin C L. Towards an integrated view of IT value measurement. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems,2010,11(1):42-60.
[26]Hitt L M, Brynjolfsson E. Productivity, business profitability, and consumer surplus:three different measures of information technology value. MIS quarterly,1996:121-142.
[27]Thatcher M E, Pingry D E. Understanding the business value of information technology investments:Theoretical evidence from alternative market and cost structures. Journal of Management Information Systems,2004,21(2):61-85.
[28]Aral S, Weill P. IT assets, organizational capabilities, and firm performance:How resource allocations and organizational differences explain performance variation. Organization Science,2007,18(5):763-780.
[29]Zammuto R F, Griffith T L, Majchrzak A, et al. Information technology and the changing fabric of organization. Organization Science,2007,18(5):749-762.
[30]Shin N. The impact of information technology on coordination costs:implications for firm productivity. 见,(In):Proceedings of the eighteenth international conference on Information systems:Association for Information Systems.1997:133-146.
[31]Bannister F, Remenyi D. Acts of faith:instinct, value and IT investment decisions. Journal of Information Technology,2000,15(3):231-241.
[32]Brynjolfsson E, Hitt L M. Beyond computation:Information technology, organizational transformation and business performance. The Journal of Economic Perspectives,2000, 14(4):23-48.
[33]Devaraj S, Kohli R. Information technology payoff in the health-care industry:a longitudinal study. Journal of Management Information Systems,2000,16(4):41-68.
[34]Irani Z, Love P E. The propagation of technology management taxonomies for evaluating investments in information systems. J. of Management Information Systems,2001,17(3): 161-178.
[35]Irani Z. Information systems evaluation:navigating through the problem domain. Information & Management,2002,40(1):11-24.
[36]Oz E. Information technology productivity:in search of a definite observation. Information & Management,2005,42(6):789-798.
[37]Soh C, Markus M L. How IT creates business value:a process theory synthesis. 见(In):ICIS: Citeseer.1995:29-41.
[38]Brynjolfsson E, Hitt L. Paradox lost? Firm-level evidence on the returns to information systems spending. Management science,1996,42(4):541-558.
[39]Barua A, Kriebel C H, Mukhopadhyay T. Information technologies and business value:An analytic and empirical investigation. Information Systems Research,1995,6(1):3-23.
[40]Thatcher M E, Oliver J R. The impact of technology investments on a firm's production efficiency, product quality, and productivity. Journal of Management Information Systems, 2001,18(2):17-46.
[41]Thatcher M E, Pingry D E. Modeling the IT value paradox. Communications of the ACM,2007, 50(8):41-45.
[42]Thatcher M E, Pingry D E. An economic model of product quality and IT value. Information Systems Research,2004,15(3):268-286.
[43]Weill P. The relationship between investment in information technology and firm performance: a study of the valve manufacturing sector. Information Systems Research,1992,3(4): 307-333.
[44]Bharadwaj A S, Bharadwaj S G, Konsynski B R. Information technology effects on firm performance as measured by Tobin's q. Management science,1999,45(7):1008-1024.
[45]Brynjolfsson E, Yang S. The intangible costs and benefits of computer investments:Evidence from the financial markets. 见(In):Atlanta, Georgia:Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems:Citeseer.1999.
[46]DeLone W H, McLean E R. Information systems success:the quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research,1992,3(1):60-95.
[47]Dehning B, Richardson V J. Returns on investments in information technology:A research synthesis. Journal of Information Systems,2002,16(1):7-30.
[48]Mooney J G, Gurbaxani V, Kraemer K L. A process oriented framework for assessing the business value of information technology. ACM SIGMIS Database,1996,27(2):68-81.
[49]Kim D, Cavusgil S T, Calantone R J. Information system innovations and supply chain management:channel relationships and firm performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,2006,34(1):40-54.
[50]Chau P Y, Kuan K K, Liang T. Research on IT value:what we have done in Asia and Europe. European Journal of Information Systems,2007,16(3):196.
[51]Sanders N R. Pattern of information technology use:The impact on buyer-suppler coordination and performance. Journal of Operations Management,2008,26(3):349-367.
[52]Mukhopadhyay T, Kekre S. Strategic and operational benefits of electronic integration in B2B procurement processes. Management science,2002,48(10):1301-1313.
[53]Subramani M. How do suppliers benefit from information technology use in supply chain relationships? MIS quarterly,2004,28(1):45-73.
[54]Brynjolfsson E. The contribution of information technology to consumer welfare. Information Systems Research,1996,7(3):281-300.
[55]Dehning B, Stratopoulos T. DuPont analysis of an IT-enabled competitive advantage. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems,2002,3(3):165-176.
[56]Sircar S, Turnbow J L, Bordoloi B. A framework for assessing the relationship between information technology investments and firm performance. Journal of Management Information Systems,2000,16(4):69-97.
[57]Nevo S, Wade M R. The Formation and Value of IT-Enabled Resources:Antecedents and Consequences of Synergistic Relationships. MIS quarterly,2010,34(1):163-183.
[58]Schryen G. Revisiting IS business value research:what we already know, what we still need to know, and how we can get there. European Journal of Information Systems,2012,22(2): 139-169.
[59]Straub D W, Watson R T. Research commentary:Transformational issues in researching IS and net-enabled organizations. Information Systems Research,2001,12(4):337-345.
[60]Basu A, Blanning R W. Synthesis and decomposition of processes in organizations. Information Systems Research,2003,14(4):337-355.
[61]Chatfield A T, Yetton P. Strategic payoff from EDI as a function of EDI embeddedness. Journal of Management Information Systems,2000,16(4):195-224.
[62]Devaraj S, Kohli R. Performance impacts of information technology:is actual usage the missing link? Management science,2003,49(3):273-289.
[63]Jorgenson D W, Ho M S, Stiroh K J. Growth of US industries and investments in information technology and higher education. Economic Systems Research,2003,15(3):279-325.
[64]Hill C A, Scudder G D. The use of electronic data interchange for supply chain coordination in the food industry. Journal of Operations Management,2002,20(4):375-387.
[65]Zhuang Y, Lederer A L. A resource-based view of electronic commerce. Information & Management,2006,43(2):251-261.
[66]Barua A, Konana P, Whinston A B, et al. An empirical investigation of net-enabled business value. MIS quarterly,2004,28(4):585-620.
[67]Markus M L, Soh C. Banking on information technology:converting IT spending into firm performance. IGI Publishing,1993.
[68]Lucas Jr H C. The business value of information technology:A historical perspective and thoughts for future research. 见(In):Strategic information technology management:IGI Publishing.1993:359-374.
[69]McKeen J D, Smith H A. The relationship between information technology use and organizational performance. IGI Publishing,1993.
[70]Gebauer J, Buxmann P. Assessing the value of interorganizational systems to support business transactions. International Journal of Electronic Commerce,2000,4:61-82.
[71]Kauffman R J, Walden E A. Economics and electronic commerce:Survey and directions for research. International Journal of Electronic Commerce,2001,5:5-116.
[72]Amit R, Zott C. Value creation in e-business. Strategic management journal,2001,22(6-7): 493-520.
[73]Yao Y, Zhu K X. Research Note—Do Electronic Linkages Reduce the Bullwhip Effect? An Empirical Analysis of the US Manufacturing Supply Chains. Information Systems Research, 2012,23(3-Part-2):1042-1055.
[74]Dong S, Xu S X, Zhu K X. Research Note—Information Technology in Supply Chains:The Value of IT-Enabled Resources Under Competition. Information Systems Research,2009, 20(1):18-32.
[75]Bharadwaj S, Bharadwaj A, Bendoly E. The performance effects of complementarities between information systems, marketing, manufacturing, and supply chain processes. Information Systems Research,2007,18(4):437-453.
[76]Saraf N, Langdon C S, Gosain S. IS application capabilities and relational value in interfirm partnerships. Information Systems Research,2007,18(3):320-339.
[77]Mishra A N, Konana P, Barua A. Antecedents and consequences of internet use in procurement: an empirical investigation of US manufacturing firms. Information Systems Research,2007, 18(1):103-120.
[78]Wang E T, Tai J C, Grover V. Examining the Relational Benefits of Improved Interfirm Information Processing Capability in Buyer-Supplier Dyads. MIS quarterly,2013,37(1): 149-173.
[79]Banker R D, Bardhan I R, Chang H, et al. Plant information systems, manufacturing capabilities, and plant performance. MIS quarterly,2006,30(2):315-337.
[80]Rai A, Patnayakuni R, Seth N. Firm performance impacts of digitally enabled supply chain integration capabilities. MIS quarterly,2006,30(2):225-246.
[81]Iyer K N, Germain R, Claycomb C. B2B e-commerce supply chain integration and performance: A contingency fit perspective on the role of environment. Information & Management,2009, 46(6):313-322.
[82]Fang Y, Harrigan P, Schroeder A, et al. eCRM Technologies, Capabilities and SME Performance Benefits.2008.
[83]Trainor K J, Rapp A, Beitelspacher L S, et al. Integrating information technology and marketing: An examination of the drivers and outcomes of e-Marketing capability. Industrial Marketing Management,2011,40(1):162-174.
[84]Combe I A, Greenley G E. Capabilities for strategic flexibility:a cognitive content framework. European Journal of Marketing,2004,38(11/12):1456-1480.
[85]Fahy J, Hooley G, Cox T, et al. The development and impact of marketing capabilities in Central Europe. Journal of International Business Studies,2000:63-81.
[86]Lorenzoni G, Lipparini A. The leveraging of interfirm relationships as a distinctive organizational capability:a longitudinal study. Strategic management journal,1999,20(4): 317-338.
[87]Weerawardena J, O'Cass A. Exploring the characteristics of the market-driven firms and antecedents to sustained competitive advantage. Industrial Marketing Management,2004, 33(5):419-428.
[88]江毅,赵晶.基于内部IT能力的服务企业合作价值创造过程的实证研究.中国地质大学学报(社会科学版),2012(01)：81-89.
[89]赵晶,朱镇.企业电子商务价值创造过程模型.管理科学学报,2010(12)：46-60+75.
[90]Arshinder K, Kanda A, Deshmukh S, A review on supply chain coordination:Coordination mechanisms, managing uncertainty and research directions, in Supply Chain Coordination under Uncertainty.2011, Springer, p.39-82.
[91]Zacharia Z G, Nix N W, Lusch R F. Capabilities that enhance outcomes of an episodic supply chain collaboration. Journal of Operations Management,2011,29(6):591-603.
[92]Corsten D, Gruen T, Peyinghaus M. The effects of supplier-to-buyer identification on operational performance—An empirical investigation of inter-organizational identification in automotive relationships. Journal of Operations Management,2011,29(6):549-560.
[93]Oh L-B, Teo H-H, Sambamurthy V. The effects of retail channel integration through the use of information technologies on firm performance. Journal of Operations Management,2012, 30(5):368-381.
[94]Sarkar M, Aulakh P S, Madhok A. Process capabilities and value generation in alliance portfolios. Organization Science,2009,20(3):583-600.
[95]Holweg M, Pil F K. Theoretical perspectives on the coordination of supply chains. Journal of Operations Management,2008,26(3):389-406.
[96]Zhou H, Benton Jr W. Supply chain practice and information sharing. Journal of Operations Management,2007,25(6):1348-1365.
[97]Sanders N R. An empirical study of the impact of e-business technologies on organizational collaboration and performance. Journal of Operations Management,2007,25(6):1332-1347.
[98]Paulraj A, Lado A A, Chen I J. Inter-organizational communication as a relational competency: antecedents and performance outcomes in collaborative buyer-supplier relationships. Journal of Operations Management,2008,26(1):45-64.
[99]Craighead C W, Hult G T M, Ketchen Jr D J. The effects of innovation-cost strategy, knowledge, and action in the supply chain on firm performance. Journal of Operations Management,2009,27(5):405-421.
[100]Cao M, Zhang Q. Supply chain collaboration:impact on collaborative advantage and firm performance. Journal of Operations Management,2011,29(3):163-180.
[101]Thirumalai S, Sinha K K. Customization of the online purchase process in electronic retailing and customer satisfaction:An online field study. Journal of Operations Management,2011, 29(5):477-487.
[102]Wong C Y, Boon-Itt S, Wong C W. The contingency effects of environmental uncertainty on the relationship between supply chain integration and operational performance. Journal of Operations Management,2011,29(6):604-615.
[103]Theoharakis V, Sajtos L, Hooley G. The strategic role of relational capabilities in the business-to-business service profit chain. Industrial Marketing Management,2009,38(8): 914-924.
[104]Smirnova M, Naude P, Henneberg S C, et al. The impact of market orientation on the development of relational capabilities and performance outcomes:The case of Russian industrial firms. Industrial Marketing Management,2011,40(1):44-53.
[105]Jacob F. Preparing industrial suppliers for customer integration. Industrial Marketing Management,2006,35(1):45-56.
[106]Chang K-H, Huang H-F. Using influence strategies to advance supplier delivery flexibility: The moderating roles of trust and shared vision. Industrial Marketing Management,2012, 41(5):849-860.
[107]Deitz G D, Tokman M, Richey R G, et al. Joint venture stability and cooperation:Direct, indirect and contingent effects of resource complementarity and trust. Industrial Marketing Management,2010,39(5):862-873.
[108]Fang S-R, Fang S-C, Chou C-H, et al. Relationship learning and innovation:The role of relationship-specific memory. Industrial Marketing Management,2011,40(5):743-753.
[109]Inemek A, Matthyssens P. The impact of buyer-supplier relationships on supplier innovativeness:An empirical study in cross-border supply networks. Industrial Marketing Management,2012.
[110]Wu F, Yeniyurt S, Kim D, et al. The impact of information technology on supply chain capabilities and firm performance:a resource-based view. Industrial Marketing Management, 2006,35(4):493-504.
[111]Sivadas E, Dwyer F R. An examination of organizational factors influencing new product success in internal and alliance-based processes. The Journal of Marketing,2000:31-49.
[112]Baker W E. The network organization in theory and practice. Networks and organizations: Structure, form and action,1992,397:429.
[113]Bozarth C C, Warsing D P, Flynn B B, et al. The impact of supply chain complexity on manufacturing plant performance. Journal of Operations Management,2009,27(1):78-93.
[114]Setia P, Sambamurthy V, Closs D J. Realizing business value of agile IT applications: antecedents in the supply chain networks. Information Technology and Management,2008, 9(1):5-19.
[115]Thompson J D. Organizations in action:Social science bases of administration. NY: McGraw-Hill,1967.
[116]Wiggins R R, Ruefli T W. Schumpeter's ghost:Is hypercompetition making the best of times shorter? Strategic management journal,2005,26(10):887-911.
[117]Eisenhardt K M, Martin J A. Dynamic capabilities:what are they? Strategic management journal,2000,21(10-11):1105-1121.
[118]Barney J. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of management,1991, 17(1):99-120.
[119]Priem R L, Butler J E. Is the resource-based "view" a useful perspective for strategic management research? Academy of management review,2001,26(1):22-40.
[120]Teece D, Pisano G. The dynamic capabilities of firms:an introduction. Industrial and corporate change,1994,3(3):537-556.
[121]Teece D J. Strategies for managing knowledge assets:the role of firm structure and industrial context. Long range planning,2000,33(1):35-54.
[122]Zahra S A, Sapienza H J, Davidsson P. Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities:a review, model and research agenda. Journal of Management studies,2006,43(4):917-955.
[123]Pavlou P A, El Sawy O A. Understanding the elusive black box of dynamic capabilities. Decision Sciences,2011,42(1):239-273.
[124]Barua A, Mukhopadhyay T. Information technology and business performance:Past, present, and future. Framing the domains of IT management:Projecting the future through the past, 2000:65-84.
[125]Fink L, Neumann S. Gaining agility through IT personnel capabilities:The mediating role of IT infrastructure capabilities. Journal of the association for information systems,2007,8(8): 25.
[126]Agarwal R, Selen W. Dynamic capability building in service value networks for achieving service innovation. Decision Sciences,2009,40(3):431-475.
[127]Wu L-Y. Resources, dynamic capabilities and performance in a dynamic environment: Perceptions in Taiwanese IT enterprises. Information & Management,2006,43(4):447-454.
[128]Peteraf M A. The cornerstones of competitive advantage:A resource-based view. Strategic management journal,1993,14(3):179-191.
[129]Dyer J H, Singh H. The relational view:Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of management review,1998,23(4): 660-679.
[130]Ahuja G. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation:A longitudinal study. Administrative science quarterly,2000,45(3):425-455.
[131]Baum J A, Calabrese T, Silverman B S. Don't go it alone:Alliance network composition and startups' performance in Canadian biotechnology. Strategic management journal,2000,21(3): 267-294.
[132]Amundson S D. Relationships between theory-driven empirical research in operations management and other disciplines. Journal of Operations Management,1998,16(4): 341-359.
[133]Donaldson L. The contingency theory of organizations. Sage,2001.
[134]Ebrahimpour M, Cullen J B. Quality management in Japanese and American firms operating in the United States:A comparative study of styles and motivational beliefs. MIR: Management International Review,1993:23-38.
[135]Voss C, Blackmon K. Differences in manufacturing strategy decisions between Japanese and Western manufacturing plants:the role of strategic time orientation. Journal of Operations Management,1998,16(2):147-158.
[136]Flynn B B, Saladin B. Relevance of Baldrige constructs in an international context:a study of national culture. Journal of Operations Management,2006,24(5):583-603.
[137]Ahire S L, Golhar D Y. Quality management in large vs small firms-An emperical investigation. Journal of Small Business Management,1996,34(2):1-13.
[138]Shah R, Ward P T. Lean manufacturing:context, practice bundles, and performance. Journal of Operations Management,2003,21(2):129-149.
[139]Sousa R. Linking quality management to manufacturing strategy:an empirical investigation of customer focus practices. Journal of Operations Management,2003,21(1):1-18.
[140]Koufteros X, Vonderembse M, Jayaram J. Internal and external integration for product development:The contingency effect of uncertainty, equivocality, and platform strategy. Decision Sciences,2005,36(1):97-133.
[141]Teo T S, Pian Y. A contingency perspective on Internet adoption and competitive advantage. European Journal of Information Systems,2003,12(2):78-92.
[142]Chang H L, Wang K, Chiu I. Business-IT fit in e-procurement systems:evidence from high technology firms in China. Information Systems Journal,2008,18(4):381-404.
[143]Dale Stoel M, Muhanna W A. IT capabilities and firm performance:A contingency analysis of the role of industry and IT capability type. Information & Management,2009,46(3): 181-189.
[144]Peppard J, Ward J. Beyond strategic information systems:towards an IS capability. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems,2004,13(2):167-194.
[145]Wu S J, Melnyk S A, Flynn B B. Operational capabilities:the secret ingredient. Decision Sciences,2010,41(4):721-754.
[146]Tanriverdi H. Information technology relatedness, knowledge management capability, and performance of multibusiness firms. MIS quarterly,2005:311-334.
[147]Alavi M, Leidner D E. Review:knowledge management and knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues. Knowledge Management:Critical Perspectives on Business and Management,2005:163-202.
[148]Tallon P P, Pinsonneault A. Competing perspectives on the link between strategic information technology alignment and organizational agility:Insights from a mediation model. MIS quarterly,2011,35(2):463-484.
[149]Baron R M, Kenny D A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research:Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology,1986,51(6):1173.
[150]Carte T A, Russell C J. In pursuit of moderation:nine common errors and teir solutions. MIS quarterly,2003,27(3):479-501.
[151]Sharma S, Durand R M, Gur-Arie O. Identification and analysis of moderator variables. Journal of marketing Research,1981:291-300.
[152]Malhotra A, Gosain S, Sawy O A E. Absorptive capacity configurations in supply chains: gearing for partner-enabled market knowledge creation. MIS quarterly,2005:145-187.
[153]Zhu K, Kraemer K L. E-commerce metrics for net-enhanced organizations:assessing the value of e-commerce to firm performance in the manufacturing sector. Information Systems Research,2002,13(3):275-295.
[154]Zhu K, Kraemer K L, Xu S. The process of innovation assimilation by firms in different countries:a technology diffusion perspective on e-business. Management science,2006, 52(10):1557-1576.
[155]Zhu K, Kraemer K L, Gurbaxani V, et al. Migration to open-standard interorganizational systems:Network effects, switching costs, and path dependency. MIS Quarterly,2006,30: 515-539.
[156]Dong S T, Xu S X, Zhu K X G. Information Technology in Supply Chains:The Value of IT-Enabled Resources Under Competition. Information Systems Research,2009,20(1): 18-32.
[157]Chin W W. Issues and opinion on structure equation modeling. MIS Quarterly,1998,22(1): vii-xvi.
[158]Gefen D, Straub D, Boudreau M. Structural equation modeling techniques and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the AIS,2000,1(7):1-78.
[159]Fornell C, Larcker D F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,1981,18(1):39-50.
[160]Overby E, Bharadwaj A, Sambamurthy V. Enterprise agility and the enabling role of information technology. European Journal of Information Systems,2006,15(2):120-131.
[161]Day G S. The capabilities of market-driven organizations. The Journal of Marketing,1994: 37-52.
[162]Braunscheidel M J, Suresh N C. The organizational antecedents of a firm's supply chain agility for risk mitigation and response. Journal of Operations Management,2009,27(2): 119-140.
[163]Hoyt J, Huq F, Kreiser P. Measuring organizational responsiveness:the development of a validated survey instrument. Management Decision,2007,45(10):1573-1594.
[164]Evans P. Blown to bits:How the new economics of information transforms strategy. Harvard Business Press,2000.
[165]Sarker S, Sarker S. Exploring agility in distributed information systems development teams: an interpretive study in an offshoring context. Information Systems Research,2009,20(3): 440-461.
[166]Singh S K, Watson H J, Watson R T. EIS support for the strategic management process. Decision Support Systems,2002,33(1):71-85.
[167]Malhotra A, Gosain S, El Sawy O A. Leveraging standard electronic business interfaces to enable adaptive supply chain partnerships. Information Systems Research,2007,18(3): 260-279.
[168]Sanchez A M, Perez M P. Supply chain flexibility and firm performance:a conceptual model and empirical study in the automotive industry. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,2005,25(7):681-700.
[169]Cohen W M, Levinthal D A. Absorptive capacity:a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative science quarterly,1990:128-152.
[170]Lawson B, Samson D. Developing innovation capability in organisations:a dynamic capabilities approach. International Journal of Innovation Management,2001,5(03): 377-400.
[171]Thomke S H. Capturing the real value of innovation tools. MIT Sloan Management Review, 2006,47(2):24-32.
[172]Child J, Faulkner D. Strategies of cooperation:Managing alliances, networks, and joint ventures. Oxford University,1998.
[173]Sakakibara M. Cooperative research and development:who participates and in which industries do projects take place? Research Policy,2001,30(7):993-1018.
[174]Knudsen M P. The Relative Importance of Interfirm Relationships and Knowledge Transfer for New Product Development Success*. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2007, 24(2):117-138.
[175]Tsai W. Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks:Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of management journal,2001,44(5):996-1004.
[176]Caloghirou Y, Kastelli I, Tsakanikas A. Internal capabilities and external knowledge sources: complements or substitutes for innovative performance? Technovation,2004,24(1):29-39.
[177]Weng R-H, Huang C-Y. The impact of customer knowledge capability and relational capability on new service development performance:The case of health service. Journal of Management & Organization,2012,18(5):608-624.
[178]Hult G T M, Hurley R F, Knight G A. Innovativeness:its antecedents and impact on business performance. Industrial Marketing Management,2004,33(5):429-438.
[179]Jiang X, Li Y. An empirical investigation of knowledge management and innovative performance:The case of alliances. Research Policy,2009,38(2):358-368.
[180]Tomlinson P R, Fai F M. The nature of SME co-operation and innovation:A multi-scalar and multi-dimensional analysis. International Journal of Production Economics,2012.
[181]Nieto M J, Santamaria L. Technological Collaboration:Bridging the Innovation Gap between Small and Large Firms*. Journal of Small Business Management,2010,48(1):44-69.
[182]Nieto M J, Santamaria L. The importance of diverse collaborative networks for the novelty of product innovation. Technovation,2007,27(6):367-377.
[183]Reddy A, Rajendran C. A simulation study of dynamic order-up-to policies in a supply chain with non-stationary customer demand and information sharing. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology,2005,25(9-10):1029-1045.
[184]Kotabe M, Martin X, Domoto H. Gaining from vertical partnerships:knowledge transfer, relationship duration, and supplier performance improvement in the US and Japanese automotive industries. Strategic management journal,2003,24(4):293-316.
[185]Dyer J, Nobeoka K. Creating and managing a high performance knowledge-sharing network: the Toyota case.2002.
[186]Yen Y-X, Hung S-W. How does supplier's asset specificity affect product development performance? A relational exchange perspective. Journal of Business& Industrial Marketing, 2013,28(4):276-287.
[187]Weiss A M, Kurland N. Holding distribution channel relationships together:The role of transaction-specific assets and length of prior relationship. Organization Science,1997,8(6): 612-623.
[188]Hernandez-Espallardo M, Rodriguez-Orejuela A, Sanchez-Perez M. Inter-organizational governance, learning and performance in supply chains. Supply Chain Management:An International Journal,2010,15(2):101-114.
[189]Luo Y, Liu Y, Xue J. Relationship investment and channel performance:an analysis of mediating forces. Journal of Management studies,2009,46(7):1113-1137.
[190]Winter S G. Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic management journal,2003,24(10): 991-995.
[191]Helfat C E, Winter S G. Untangling Dynamic and Operational Capabilities:Strategy for the (N) ever-Changing World. Strategic management journal,2011,32(11):1243-1250.
[192]Chmielewski D A, Paladino A. Driving a resource orientation:reviewing the role of resource and capability characteristics. Management Decision,2007,45(3):462-483.
[193]Drnevich P L, Kriauciunas A P. Clarifying the conditions and limits of the contributions of ordinary and dynamic capabilities to relative firm performance. Strategic management journal,2011,32(3):254-279.
[194]Christopher M, Towill D R. Supply chain migration from lean and functional to agile and customised. Supply Chain Management:An International Journal,2000,5(4):206-213.
[195]Christopher M, Towill D. An integrated model for the design of agile supply chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,2001,31(4): 235-246.
[196]Zhang Q, Vonderembse M A, Lim J-S. Value chain flexibility:a dichotomy of competence and capability. International Journal of Production Research,2002,40(3):561-583.
[197]Zhang Q, Vonderembse M A, Lim J-S. Manufacturing flexibility:defining and analyzing relationships among competence, capability, and customer satisfaction. Journal of Operations Management,2003,21(2):173-191.
[198]Chopra S, Sodhi M. Managing risk to avoid supply-chain breakdown. MIT Sloan Management Review (Fall 2004),2012.
[199]Kleindorfer P R, Saad G H. Managing disruption risks in supply chains. Production and Operations Management,2005,14(1):53-68.
[200]Swafford P M, Ghosh S, Murthy N. The antecedents of supply chain agility of a firm:scale development and model testing. Journal of Operations Management,2006,24(2):170-188.
[201]Ferrier W J, Smith K G, Grimm C M. The role of competitive action in market share erosion and industry dethronement:A study of industry leaders and challengers. Academy of management journal, 1999.42(4):372-388
[202]Wernerfelt B. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic management journal,1984,5(2): 171-180.
[203]Prahalad C, Hamel G. The core competence of the corporation. Boston (MA),1990.
[204]Damanpour F. Organizational innovation:A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of management journal,1991,34(3):555-590.
[205]Henard D H, Szymanski D M. Why some new products are more successful than others. Journal of marketing Research,2001:362-375.
[206]Porter M E, Kramer M R. The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard business review,2002,80(12):56-68.
[207]Lau A K, Tang E, Yam R. Effects of supplier and customer integration on product innovation and performance:empirical evidence in Hong Kong manufacturers. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2010,27(5):761-777.
[208]Rhee J, Park T, Lee D H. Drivers of innovativeness and performance for innovative SMEs in South Korea:Mediation of learning orientation. Technovation,2010,30(1):65-75.
[209]Rosenbusch N, Brinckmann J. Bausch A. Is innovation always beneficial? A meta-analysis of the relationship between innovation and performance in SMEs. Journal of Business Venturing,2011,26(4):441-457.
[210]Mort G S, Weerawardena J. Networking capability and international entrepreneurship:how networks function in Australian born global firms. International Marketing Review,2006, 23(5):549-572.
[211]Terziovski M. Innovation practice and its performance implications in small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the manufacturing sector:a resource - based view. Strategic management journal,2010,31(8):892-902.
[212]Sok P, O'Cass A. Achieving superior innovation-based performance outcomes in SMEs through innovation resource-capability complementarity. Industrial Marketing Management, 2011,40(8):1285-1293.
[213]Manthou V, Vlachopoulou M, Folinas D. Virtual e-Chain (VeC) model for supply chain collaboration. International Journal of Production Economics,2004,87(3):241-250.
[214]Kim G, Shin B, Kim K K, et al. IT capabilities, process-oriented dynamic capabilities, and firm financial performance. Journal of the association for information systems,2011,12(7):
[215]Liao J J, Kickul J R, Ma H. Organizational dynamic capability and innovation:an empirical examination of internet firms. Journal of Small Business Management,2009,47(3):263-286.
[216]Butler T, Murphy C. An exploratory study on IS capabilities and assets in a small-to-medium software enterprise. Journal of Information Technology,2008,23(4):330-344.
[217]Lado A A. Paulraj A, Chen I J. Customer focus, supply-chain relational capabilities and performance:Evidence from US manufacturing industries. International Journal of Logistics Management, The,2011,22(2):202-221.
[218]Edwards J R, Lambert L S. Methods for integrating moderation and mediation:A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods,2007,12(1): 1-22.
[219]温忠麟,侯杰泰,张雷.调节效应与中介效应的比较和应用.心理学报,2005,37(2)：268-274.
[220]Nazir S, Pinsonneault A. IT and Firm Agility:An Electronic Integration Perspective. Journal of the association for information systems,2012,13(3):2.
[221]Aranda D A, Molina-Fernandez L M. Determinants of innovation through a knowledge-based theory lens. Industrial Management & Data Systems,2002,102(5):289-296.
[222]Dyer J H, Hatch N. Using supplier networks to learn faster. MIT Sloan Management Review, spring,2012,200.
[223]Madhok A, Tallman S B. Resources, transactions and rents:managing value through interfirm collaborative relationships. Organization Science,1998,9(3):326-339.
[224]Lee Y, Cavusgil S T. Enhancing alliance performance:The effects of contractual-based versus relational-based governance. Journal of business research,2006,59(8):896-905.
[225]Claro D P, Hagelaar G, Omta O. The determinants of relational governance and performance: how to manage business relationships? Industrial Marketing Management,2003,32(8): 703-716.
[226]Gligor D M, Holcomb M C. Antecedents and Consequences of Supply Chain Agility: Establishing the Link to Firm Performance. Journal of Business Logistics,2012,33(4): 295-308.
[227]Li X, Goldsby T J, Holsapple C W. Supply chain agility:scale development. International Journal of Logistics Management, The,2009,20(3):408-424.
[228]Schreiner M, Kale P, Corsten D. What really is alliance management capability and how does it impact alliance outcomes and success? Strategic management journal,2009,30(13): 1395-1419.
[229]Mohr J, Spekman R. Characteristics of partnership success:partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques. Strategic management journal, 1994,15(2):135-152.
[230]Molller K, Wilson D T. Business marketing:An interaction and network perspective. Springer, 1995.
[231]Wong A, Tjosvold D, Zhang P. Developing relationships in strategic alliances:commitment to quality and cooperative interdependence. Industrial Marketing Management,2005,34(7): 722-731.
[232]Wucherer K. Business partnering—A driving force for innovation. Industrial Marketing Management,2006,35(1):91-102.
[233]Xu G, Liu X, Zhou Y, et al. Effects of relational embeddedness on technological innovation: An empirical study in China. Chinese Management Studies,2012,6(1):108-123.
[234]Lowik S, Van Rossum D, Kraaijenbrink J, et al. Strong Ties as Sources of New Knowledge: How Small Firms Innovate through Bridging Capabilities*. Journal of Small Business Management,2012,50(2):239-256.
[235]Stock G N, Tatikonda M V. The joint influence of technology uncertainty and interorganizational interaction on external technology integration success. Journal of Operations Management,2008,26(1):65-80.
[236]Tiwana A, Konsynski B. Complementarities between organizational IT architecture and governance structure. Information Systems Research,2010, Articles in Advance:1-17.
[237]Cai S, Jun M, Yang Z. Implementing supply chain information integration in China:The role of institutional forces and trust. Journal of Operations Management,2010,28(3):257-268.
[238]Han K, Oh W, Im K S, et al. Value cocreation and wealth spillover in open innovation alliances. MIS Quarterly,2012,36(1):291-325.
[239]Grover V, Kohli R. Cocreating IT Value:New Capabilities and Metrics for Multifirm Environments. MIS Quarterly,2012,36(1):225-232.
[240]Novak S, Eppinger S D. Sourcing by design:product complexity and the supply chain. Management science,2001,47(1):189-204.
[241]Fisher M L. What is the right supply chain for your product? Harvard business review,1997, 75:105-117.
[242]Saeed K A, Malhotra M K, Grover V. Examining the impact of interorganizational systems on process efficiency and sourcing leverage in buyer-supplier dyads. Decision Sciences,2005, 36(3):365-396.
[243]Nambisan S. Designing virtual customer environments for new product development:Toward a theory. Academy of management review,2002,27(3):392-413.
[244]Zaheer A, Zaheer S. Catching the wave:alertness, responsiveness, and market influence in global electronic networks. Management science,1997,43(11):1493-1509.
[245]Littunen H. Networks and local environmental characteristics in the survival of new firms. Small Business Economics,2000,15(1):59-71.
[246]Atuahene - Gima K. An exploratory analysis of the impact of market orientation on new product performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management,1995,12(4):275-293.
[247]Chaveerug A, Ussahawanitchakit P. Learning orientation, innovation capability, and organizational performance in Thai audit firms:moderating effects of organization climate and uncertainty environment. Review of Business Research,2008,8(2):92-102.
[248]Russell R D, Russell C J. An examination of the effects of organizational norms, organizational structure, and environmental uncertainty on entrepreneurial strategy. Journal of management,1992,18(4):639-656.
[249]Meyer M H, Utterback J M. Product development cycle time and commercial success. Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on,1995,42(4):297-304.
[250]Phromket C, Ussahawanitchakit P. Effects of organizational learning effectiveness on innovation outcomes and export performance of garments business in Thailand. International Journal of Business Research,2009,9(7):6-31.
[251]Carbonell P, Rodriguez A I. The impact of market characteristics and innovation speed on perceptions of positional advantage and new product performance. International Journal of Research in Marketing,2006,23(1):1-12.
[252]Fiol C M. Revisiting an identity-based view of sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of management,2001,27(6):691-699.
[253]Freel M S. Perceived environmental uncertainty and innovation in small firms. Small Business Economics,2005,25(1):49-64.
[254]Cannon J P, Perreault Jr W D. Buyer-seller relationships in business markets. Journal of marketing research,1999:439-460.
[255]Flynn B B, Flynn E J. Information-Processing Alternatives for Coping with Manufacturing Environment Complexity. Decision Sciences,1999,30(4):1021-1052.
[256]Ward P T, Duray R, Keong Leong G, et al. Business environment, operations strategy, and performance:an empirical study of Singapore manufacturers. Journal of operations Management,1995,13(2):99-115.
[257]Kohli A K, Jaworski B J. Market orientation:the construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. The Journal of Marketing,1990:1-18.
[258]Auh S, Menguc B. Balancing exploration and exploitation:The moderating role of competitive intensity. Journal of business research,2005,58(12):1652-1661.
[259]Castrogiovanni G J. Organization task environments:Have they changed fundamentally over time? Journal of Management,2002,28(2):129-150.
[260]Sirmon D G, Hitt M A, Arregle J L, et al. The dynamic interplay of capability strengths and weaknesses:investigating the bases of temporary competitive advantage. Strategic management journal,2010,31(13):1386-1409.
[261]Lusch R F, Laczniak G R. The evolving marketing concept, competitive intensity and organizational performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,1987,15(3): 1-11.
[262]Berghman L, Matthyssens P, Streukens S, et al. Deliberate learning mechanisms for stimulating strategic innovation capacity. Long range planning,2012.
[263]Clemons E K, Reddi S P, Row M C. The Impact of Information Technology on the Organization of Economic Activity:The" Move to the Middle55 Hypothesis. Journal of management information systems,1993,10(2):9-35.
[264]Kumar K, Van Dissel H G. Sustainable collaboration:managing conflict and cooperation in interorganizational systems. Mis Quarterly,1996:279-300.
[265]Dwyer F R, Oh S. Output sector munificence effects on the internal political economy of marketing channels. Journal of Marketing Research,1987:347-358.
[266]Konsynski B, Tiwana A. The improvisation-efficiency paradox in inter-firm electronic networks:governance and architecture considerations. Journal of Information Technology, 2004,19(4):234-243.
[267]Choudhury V. Strategic choices in the development of interorganizational information systems. Information Systems Research,1997,8(1):1-24.
[268]Vaaland T 1, Hakansson H. Exploring interorganizational conflict in complex projects. Industrial Marketing Management,2003,32(2):127-138.
[2]Floyd S W, Wooldridge B. Path analysis of the relationship between competitive strategy, information technology, and financial performance. Journal of Management Information Systems,1990,7(1):47-64.
[3]Powell T C, Dent-Micallef A. Information technology as competitive advantage:the role of human, business, and technology resources. Strategic management journal,1997,18(5): 375-405.
[4]Kohli R, Grover V. Business value of IT:an essay on expanding research directions to keep up with the times. Journal of the association for information systems,2008,9(1):23-39.
[5]Somogyi E K, Galliers R D. Applied information technology:from data processing to strategic information systems. Journal of Information Technology,1987,2(1):30-41.
[6]Bharadwaj A S. A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm performance:an empirical investigation. MIS quarterly,2000:169-196.
[7]Lavie D. The competitive advantage of interconnected firms:An extension of the resource-based view. Academy of management review,2006,31(3):638-658.
[8]Teece D J, Pisano G, Shuen A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic management journal,1997,18(7):509-533.
[9]Teece D J. Explicating dynamic capabilities:the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic management journal,2007,28(13):1319-1350.
[10]Pavlou P A, El Sawy O A. The "third hand":IT-enabled competitive advantage in turbulence through improvisational capabilities. Information Systems Research,2010,21(3):443-471.
[11]Tallon P P. Inside the adaptive enterprise:an information technology capabilities perspective on business process agility. Information Technology and Management,2008,9(1):21-36.
[12]Ravichandran T, Troy N. IT competencies, innovation capacity and organizational agility: Performance impacts and the moderating effects of environmental characteristics. 见(In): Conf. Inform. Systems Tech., INFORMS, Baltimore.2007.
[13]Sambamurthy V, Bharadwaj A, Grover V. Shaping agility through digital options: Reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms. MIS quarterly, 2003:237-263.
[14]Swafford P M, Ghosh S, Murthy N. Achieving supply chain agility through IT integration and flexibility. International Journal of Production Economics,2008,116(2):288-297.
[15]Grover V, Saeed K A. The impact of product, market, and relationship characteristics on interorganizational system integration in manufacturer-supplier dyads. Journal of Management Information Systems,2007,23(4):185-216.
[16]Klein R, Rai A. Interfirm strategic information flows in logistics supply chain relationships. MIS quarterly,2009,33(4):735-762.
[17]Devaraj S, Krajewski L, Wei J C. Impact of eBusiness technologies on operational performance: the role of production information integration in the supply chain. Journal of Operations Management,2007,25(6):1199-1216.
[18]Rosenzweig E D. A contingent view of e-collaboration and performance in manufacturing. Journal of Operations Management,2009,27(6):462-478.
[19]Krishnan M, Rai A, Zmud R. Editorial Overview The Digitally Enabled Extended Enterprise in a Global Economy. Information Systems Research,2007,18(3):233.
[20]Melville N, Kraemer K, Gurbaxani V. Review:Information technology and organizational performance:An integrative model of IT business value. MIS quarterly,2004,28(2): 283-322.
[21]Wade M, Hulland J. Review:The resource-based view and information systems research: Review, extension, and suggestions for future research. MIS quarterly,2004,28(1):107-142.
[22]Rai A, Tang X. Leveraging IT capabilities and competitive process capabilities for the management of interorganizational relationship portfolios. Information Systems Research, 2010,21(3):516-542.
[23]Carr N G. IT doesn't matter. Educause Review,2003,38:24-38.
[24]Baker J, Song J, Jones D. Refining the IT business value model:evidence from a longitudinal investigation of healthcare firms.2008.
[25]Davern M J, Wilkin C L. Towards an integrated view of IT value measurement. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems,2010,11(1):42-60.
[26]Hitt L M, Brynjolfsson E. Productivity, business profitability, and consumer surplus:three different measures of information technology value. MIS quarterly,1996:121-142.
[27]Thatcher M E, Pingry D E. Understanding the business value of information technology investments:Theoretical evidence from alternative market and cost structures. Journal of Management Information Systems,2004,21(2):61-85.
[28]Aral S, Weill P. IT assets, organizational capabilities, and firm performance:How resource allocations and organizational differences explain performance variation. Organization Science,2007,18(5):763-780.
[29]Zammuto R F, Griffith T L, Majchrzak A, et al. Information technology and the changing fabric of organization. Organization Science,2007,18(5):749-762.
[30]Shin N. The impact of information technology on coordination costs:implications for firm productivity. 见,(In):Proceedings of the eighteenth international conference on Information systems:Association for Information Systems.1997:133-146.
[31]Bannister F, Remenyi D. Acts of faith:instinct, value and IT investment decisions. Journal of Information Technology,2000,15(3):231-241.
[32]Brynjolfsson E, Hitt L M. Beyond computation:Information technology, organizational transformation and business performance. The Journal of Economic Perspectives,2000, 14(4):23-48.
[33]Devaraj S, Kohli R. Information technology payoff in the health-care industry:a longitudinal study. Journal of Management Information Systems,2000,16(4):41-68.
[34]Irani Z, Love P E. The propagation of technology management taxonomies for evaluating investments in information systems. J. of Management Information Systems,2001,17(3): 161-178.
[35]Irani Z. Information systems evaluation:navigating through the problem domain. Information & Management,2002,40(1):11-24.
[36]Oz E. Information technology productivity:in search of a definite observation. Information & Management,2005,42(6):789-798.
[37]Soh C, Markus M L. How IT creates business value:a process theory synthesis. 见(In):ICIS: Citeseer.1995:29-41.
[38]Brynjolfsson E, Hitt L. Paradox lost? Firm-level evidence on the returns to information systems spending. Management science,1996,42(4):541-558.
[39]Barua A, Kriebel C H, Mukhopadhyay T. Information technologies and business value:An analytic and empirical investigation. Information Systems Research,1995,6(1):3-23.
[40]Thatcher M E, Oliver J R. The impact of technology investments on a firm's production efficiency, product quality, and productivity. Journal of Management Information Systems, 2001,18(2):17-46.
[41]Thatcher M E, Pingry D E. Modeling the IT value paradox. Communications of the ACM,2007, 50(8):41-45.
[42]Thatcher M E, Pingry D E. An economic model of product quality and IT value. Information Systems Research,2004,15(3):268-286.
[43]Weill P. The relationship between investment in information technology and firm performance: a study of the valve manufacturing sector. Information Systems Research,1992,3(4): 307-333.
[44]Bharadwaj A S, Bharadwaj S G, Konsynski B R. Information technology effects on firm performance as measured by Tobin's q. Management science,1999,45(7):1008-1024.
[45]Brynjolfsson E, Yang S. The intangible costs and benefits of computer investments:Evidence from the financial markets. 见(In):Atlanta, Georgia:Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems:Citeseer.1999.
[46]DeLone W H, McLean E R. Information systems success:the quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research,1992,3(1):60-95.
[47]Dehning B, Richardson V J. Returns on investments in information technology:A research synthesis. Journal of Information Systems,2002,16(1):7-30.
[48]Mooney J G, Gurbaxani V, Kraemer K L. A process oriented framework for assessing the business value of information technology. ACM SIGMIS Database,1996,27(2):68-81.
[49]Kim D, Cavusgil S T, Calantone R J. Information system innovations and supply chain management:channel relationships and firm performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,2006,34(1):40-54.
[50]Chau P Y, Kuan K K, Liang T. Research on IT value:what we have done in Asia and Europe. European Journal of Information Systems,2007,16(3):196.
[51]Sanders N R. Pattern of information technology use:The impact on buyer-suppler coordination and performance. Journal of Operations Management,2008,26(3):349-367.
[52]Mukhopadhyay T, Kekre S. Strategic and operational benefits of electronic integration in B2B procurement processes. Management science,2002,48(10):1301-1313.
[53]Subramani M. How do suppliers benefit from information technology use in supply chain relationships? MIS quarterly,2004,28(1):45-73.
[54]Brynjolfsson E. The contribution of information technology to consumer welfare. Information Systems Research,1996,7(3):281-300.
[55]Dehning B, Stratopoulos T. DuPont analysis of an IT-enabled competitive advantage. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems,2002,3(3):165-176.
[56]Sircar S, Turnbow J L, Bordoloi B. A framework for assessing the relationship between information technology investments and firm performance. Journal of Management Information Systems,2000,16(4):69-97.
[57]Nevo S, Wade M R. The Formation and Value of IT-Enabled Resources:Antecedents and Consequences of Synergistic Relationships. MIS quarterly,2010,34(1):163-183.
[58]Schryen G. Revisiting IS business value research:what we already know, what we still need to know, and how we can get there. European Journal of Information Systems,2012,22(2): 139-169.
[59]Straub D W, Watson R T. Research commentary:Transformational issues in researching IS and net-enabled organizations. Information Systems Research,2001,12(4):337-345.
[60]Basu A, Blanning R W. Synthesis and decomposition of processes in organizations. Information Systems Research,2003,14(4):337-355.
[61]Chatfield A T, Yetton P. Strategic payoff from EDI as a function of EDI embeddedness. Journal of Management Information Systems,2000,16(4):195-224.
[62]Devaraj S, Kohli R. Performance impacts of information technology:is actual usage the missing link? Management science,2003,49(3):273-289.
[63]Jorgenson D W, Ho M S, Stiroh K J. Growth of US industries and investments in information technology and higher education. Economic Systems Research,2003,15(3):279-325.
[64]Hill C A, Scudder G D. The use of electronic data interchange for supply chain coordination in the food industry. Journal of Operations Management,2002,20(4):375-387.
[65]Zhuang Y, Lederer A L. A resource-based view of electronic commerce. Information & Management,2006,43(2):251-261.
[66]Barua A, Konana P, Whinston A B, et al. An empirical investigation of net-enabled business value. MIS quarterly,2004,28(4):585-620.
[67]Markus M L, Soh C. Banking on information technology:converting IT spending into firm performance. IGI Publishing,1993.
[68]Lucas Jr H C. The business value of information technology:A historical perspective and thoughts for future research. 见(In):Strategic information technology management:IGI Publishing.1993:359-374.
[69]McKeen J D, Smith H A. The relationship between information technology use and organizational performance. IGI Publishing,1993.
[70]Gebauer J, Buxmann P. Assessing the value of interorganizational systems to support business transactions. International Journal of Electronic Commerce,2000,4:61-82.
[71]Kauffman R J, Walden E A. Economics and electronic commerce:Survey and directions for research. International Journal of Electronic Commerce,2001,5:5-116.
[72]Amit R, Zott C. Value creation in e-business. Strategic management journal,2001,22(6-7): 493-520.
[73]Yao Y, Zhu K X. Research Note—Do Electronic Linkages Reduce the Bullwhip Effect? An Empirical Analysis of the US Manufacturing Supply Chains. Information Systems Research, 2012,23(3-Part-2):1042-1055.
[74]Dong S, Xu S X, Zhu K X. Research Note—Information Technology in Supply Chains:The Value of IT-Enabled Resources Under Competition. Information Systems Research,2009, 20(1):18-32.
[75]Bharadwaj S, Bharadwaj A, Bendoly E. The performance effects of complementarities between information systems, marketing, manufacturing, and supply chain processes. Information Systems Research,2007,18(4):437-453.
[76]Saraf N, Langdon C S, Gosain S. IS application capabilities and relational value in interfirm partnerships. Information Systems Research,2007,18(3):320-339.
[77]Mishra A N, Konana P, Barua A. Antecedents and consequences of internet use in procurement: an empirical investigation of US manufacturing firms. Information Systems Research,2007, 18(1):103-120.
[78]Wang E T, Tai J C, Grover V. Examining the Relational Benefits of Improved Interfirm Information Processing Capability in Buyer-Supplier Dyads. MIS quarterly,2013,37(1): 149-173.
[79]Banker R D, Bardhan I R, Chang H, et al. Plant information systems, manufacturing capabilities, and plant performance. MIS quarterly,2006,30(2):315-337.
[80]Rai A, Patnayakuni R, Seth N. Firm performance impacts of digitally enabled supply chain integration capabilities. MIS quarterly,2006,30(2):225-246.
[81]Iyer K N, Germain R, Claycomb C. B2B e-commerce supply chain integration and performance: A contingency fit perspective on the role of environment. Information & Management,2009, 46(6):313-322.
[82]Fang Y, Harrigan P, Schroeder A, et al. eCRM Technologies, Capabilities and SME Performance Benefits.2008.
[83]Trainor K J, Rapp A, Beitelspacher L S, et al. Integrating information technology and marketing: An examination of the drivers and outcomes of e-Marketing capability. Industrial Marketing Management,2011,40(1):162-174.
[84]Combe I A, Greenley G E. Capabilities for strategic flexibility:a cognitive content framework. European Journal of Marketing,2004,38(11/12):1456-1480.
[85]Fahy J, Hooley G, Cox T, et al. The development and impact of marketing capabilities in Central Europe. Journal of International Business Studies,2000:63-81.
[86]Lorenzoni G, Lipparini A. The leveraging of interfirm relationships as a distinctive organizational capability:a longitudinal study. Strategic management journal,1999,20(4): 317-338.
[87]Weerawardena J, O'Cass A. Exploring the characteristics of the market-driven firms and antecedents to sustained competitive advantage. Industrial Marketing Management,2004, 33(5):419-428.
[88]江毅,赵晶.基于内部IT能力的服务企业合作价值创造过程的实证研究.中国地质大学学报(社会科学版),2012(01)：81-89.
[89]赵晶,朱镇.企业电子商务价值创造过程模型.管理科学学报,2010(12)：46-60+75.
[90]Arshinder K, Kanda A, Deshmukh S, A review on supply chain coordination:Coordination mechanisms, managing uncertainty and research directions, in Supply Chain Coordination under Uncertainty.2011, Springer, p.39-82.
[91]Zacharia Z G, Nix N W, Lusch R F. Capabilities that enhance outcomes of an episodic supply chain collaboration. Journal of Operations Management,2011,29(6):591-603.
[92]Corsten D, Gruen T, Peyinghaus M. The effects of supplier-to-buyer identification on operational performance—An empirical investigation of inter-organizational identification in automotive relationships. Journal of Operations Management,2011,29(6):549-560.
[93]Oh L-B, Teo H-H, Sambamurthy V. The effects of retail channel integration through the use of information technologies on firm performance. Journal of Operations Management,2012, 30(5):368-381.
[94]Sarkar M, Aulakh P S, Madhok A. Process capabilities and value generation in alliance portfolios. Organization Science,2009,20(3):583-600.
[95]Holweg M, Pil F K. Theoretical perspectives on the coordination of supply chains. Journal of Operations Management,2008,26(3):389-406.
[96]Zhou H, Benton Jr W. Supply chain practice and information sharing. Journal of Operations Management,2007,25(6):1348-1365.
[97]Sanders N R. An empirical study of the impact of e-business technologies on organizational collaboration and performance. Journal of Operations Management,2007,25(6):1332-1347.
[98]Paulraj A, Lado A A, Chen I J. Inter-organizational communication as a relational competency: antecedents and performance outcomes in collaborative buyer-supplier relationships. Journal of Operations Management,2008,26(1):45-64.
[99]Craighead C W, Hult G T M, Ketchen Jr D J. The effects of innovation-cost strategy, knowledge, and action in the supply chain on firm performance. Journal of Operations Management,2009,27(5):405-421.
[100]Cao M, Zhang Q. Supply chain collaboration:impact on collaborative advantage and firm performance. Journal of Operations Management,2011,29(3):163-180.
[101]Thirumalai S, Sinha K K. Customization of the online purchase process in electronic retailing and customer satisfaction:An online field study. Journal of Operations Management,2011, 29(5):477-487.
[102]Wong C Y, Boon-Itt S, Wong C W. The contingency effects of environmental uncertainty on the relationship between supply chain integration and operational performance. Journal of Operations Management,2011,29(6):604-615.
[103]Theoharakis V, Sajtos L, Hooley G. The strategic role of relational capabilities in the business-to-business service profit chain. Industrial Marketing Management,2009,38(8): 914-924.
[104]Smirnova M, Naude P, Henneberg S C, et al. The impact of market orientation on the development of relational capabilities and performance outcomes:The case of Russian industrial firms. Industrial Marketing Management,2011,40(1):44-53.
[105]Jacob F. Preparing industrial suppliers for customer integration. Industrial Marketing Management,2006,35(1):45-56.
[106]Chang K-H, Huang H-F. Using influence strategies to advance supplier delivery flexibility: The moderating roles of trust and shared vision. Industrial Marketing Management,2012, 41(5):849-860.
[107]Deitz G D, Tokman M, Richey R G, et al. Joint venture stability and cooperation:Direct, indirect and contingent effects of resource complementarity and trust. Industrial Marketing Management,2010,39(5):862-873.
[108]Fang S-R, Fang S-C, Chou C-H, et al. Relationship learning and innovation:The role of relationship-specific memory. Industrial Marketing Management,2011,40(5):743-753.
[109]Inemek A, Matthyssens P. The impact of buyer-supplier relationships on supplier innovativeness:An empirical study in cross-border supply networks. Industrial Marketing Management,2012.
[110]Wu F, Yeniyurt S, Kim D, et al. The impact of information technology on supply chain capabilities and firm performance:a resource-based view. Industrial Marketing Management, 2006,35(4):493-504.
[111]Sivadas E, Dwyer F R. An examination of organizational factors influencing new product success in internal and alliance-based processes. The Journal of Marketing,2000:31-49.
[112]Baker W E. The network organization in theory and practice. Networks and organizations: Structure, form and action,1992,397:429.
[113]Bozarth C C, Warsing D P, Flynn B B, et al. The impact of supply chain complexity on manufacturing plant performance. Journal of Operations Management,2009,27(1):78-93.
[114]Setia P, Sambamurthy V, Closs D J. Realizing business value of agile IT applications: antecedents in the supply chain networks. Information Technology and Management,2008, 9(1):5-19.
[115]Thompson J D. Organizations in action:Social science bases of administration. NY: McGraw-Hill,1967.
[116]Wiggins R R, Ruefli T W. Schumpeter's ghost:Is hypercompetition making the best of times shorter? Strategic management journal,2005,26(10):887-911.
[117]Eisenhardt K M, Martin J A. Dynamic capabilities:what are they? Strategic management journal,2000,21(10-11):1105-1121.
[118]Barney J. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of management,1991, 17(1):99-120.
[119]Priem R L, Butler J E. Is the resource-based "view" a useful perspective for strategic management research? Academy of management review,2001,26(1):22-40.
[120]Teece D, Pisano G. The dynamic capabilities of firms:an introduction. Industrial and corporate change,1994,3(3):537-556.
[121]Teece D J. Strategies for managing knowledge assets:the role of firm structure and industrial context. Long range planning,2000,33(1):35-54.
[122]Zahra S A, Sapienza H J, Davidsson P. Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities:a review, model and research agenda. Journal of Management studies,2006,43(4):917-955.
[123]Pavlou P A, El Sawy O A. Understanding the elusive black box of dynamic capabilities. Decision Sciences,2011,42(1):239-273.
[124]Barua A, Mukhopadhyay T. Information technology and business performance:Past, present, and future. Framing the domains of IT management:Projecting the future through the past, 2000:65-84.
[125]Fink L, Neumann S. Gaining agility through IT personnel capabilities:The mediating role of IT infrastructure capabilities. Journal of the association for information systems,2007,8(8): 25.
[126]Agarwal R, Selen W. Dynamic capability building in service value networks for achieving service innovation. Decision Sciences,2009,40(3):431-475.
[127]Wu L-Y. Resources, dynamic capabilities and performance in a dynamic environment: Perceptions in Taiwanese IT enterprises. Information & Management,2006,43(4):447-454.
[128]Peteraf M A. The cornerstones of competitive advantage:A resource-based view. Strategic management journal,1993,14(3):179-191.
[129]Dyer J H, Singh H. The relational view:Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of management review,1998,23(4): 660-679.
[130]Ahuja G. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation:A longitudinal study. Administrative science quarterly,2000,45(3):425-455.
[131]Baum J A, Calabrese T, Silverman B S. Don't go it alone:Alliance network composition and startups' performance in Canadian biotechnology. Strategic management journal,2000,21(3): 267-294.
[132]Amundson S D. Relationships between theory-driven empirical research in operations management and other disciplines. Journal of Operations Management,1998,16(4): 341-359.
[133]Donaldson L. The contingency theory of organizations. Sage,2001.
[134]Ebrahimpour M, Cullen J B. Quality management in Japanese and American firms operating in the United States:A comparative study of styles and motivational beliefs. MIR: Management International Review,1993:23-38.
[135]Voss C, Blackmon K. Differences in manufacturing strategy decisions between Japanese and Western manufacturing plants:the role of strategic time orientation. Journal of Operations Management,1998,16(2):147-158.
[136]Flynn B B, Saladin B. Relevance of Baldrige constructs in an international context:a study of national culture. Journal of Operations Management,2006,24(5):583-603.
[137]Ahire S L, Golhar D Y. Quality management in large vs small firms-An emperical investigation. Journal of Small Business Management,1996,34(2):1-13.
[138]Shah R, Ward P T. Lean manufacturing:context, practice bundles, and performance. Journal of Operations Management,2003,21(2):129-149.
[139]Sousa R. Linking quality management to manufacturing strategy:an empirical investigation of customer focus practices. Journal of Operations Management,2003,21(1):1-18.
[140]Koufteros X, Vonderembse M, Jayaram J. Internal and external integration for product development:The contingency effect of uncertainty, equivocality, and platform strategy. Decision Sciences,2005,36(1):97-133.
[141]Teo T S, Pian Y. A contingency perspective on Internet adoption and competitive advantage. European Journal of Information Systems,2003,12(2):78-92.
[142]Chang H L, Wang K, Chiu I. Business-IT fit in e-procurement systems:evidence from high technology firms in China. Information Systems Journal,2008,18(4):381-404.
[143]Dale Stoel M, Muhanna W A. IT capabilities and firm performance:A contingency analysis of the role of industry and IT capability type. Information & Management,2009,46(3): 181-189.
[144]Peppard J, Ward J. Beyond strategic information systems:towards an IS capability. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems,2004,13(2):167-194.
[145]Wu S J, Melnyk S A, Flynn B B. Operational capabilities:the secret ingredient. Decision Sciences,2010,41(4):721-754.
[146]Tanriverdi H. Information technology relatedness, knowledge management capability, and performance of multibusiness firms. MIS quarterly,2005:311-334.
[147]Alavi M, Leidner D E. Review:knowledge management and knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues. Knowledge Management:Critical Perspectives on Business and Management,2005:163-202.
[148]Tallon P P, Pinsonneault A. Competing perspectives on the link between strategic information technology alignment and organizational agility:Insights from a mediation model. MIS quarterly,2011,35(2):463-484.
[149]Baron R M, Kenny D A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research:Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology,1986,51(6):1173.
[150]Carte T A, Russell C J. In pursuit of moderation:nine common errors and teir solutions. MIS quarterly,2003,27(3):479-501.
[151]Sharma S, Durand R M, Gur-Arie O. Identification and analysis of moderator variables. Journal of marketing Research,1981:291-300.
[152]Malhotra A, Gosain S, Sawy O A E. Absorptive capacity configurations in supply chains: gearing for partner-enabled market knowledge creation. MIS quarterly,2005:145-187.
[153]Zhu K, Kraemer K L. E-commerce metrics for net-enhanced organizations:assessing the value of e-commerce to firm performance in the manufacturing sector. Information Systems Research,2002,13(3):275-295.
[154]Zhu K, Kraemer K L, Xu S. The process of innovation assimilation by firms in different countries:a technology diffusion perspective on e-business. Management science,2006, 52(10):1557-1576.
[155]Zhu K, Kraemer K L, Gurbaxani V, et al. Migration to open-standard interorganizational systems:Network effects, switching costs, and path dependency. MIS Quarterly,2006,30: 515-539.
[156]Dong S T, Xu S X, Zhu K X G. Information Technology in Supply Chains:The Value of IT-Enabled Resources Under Competition. Information Systems Research,2009,20(1): 18-32.
[157]Chin W W. Issues and opinion on structure equation modeling. MIS Quarterly,1998,22(1): vii-xvi.
[158]Gefen D, Straub D, Boudreau M. Structural equation modeling techniques and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the AIS,2000,1(7):1-78.
[159]Fornell C, Larcker D F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,1981,18(1):39-50.
[160]Overby E, Bharadwaj A, Sambamurthy V. Enterprise agility and the enabling role of information technology. European Journal of Information Systems,2006,15(2):120-131.
[161]Day G S. The capabilities of market-driven organizations. The Journal of Marketing,1994: 37-52.
[162]Braunscheidel M J, Suresh N C. The organizational antecedents of a firm's supply chain agility for risk mitigation and response. Journal of Operations Management,2009,27(2): 119-140.
[163]Hoyt J, Huq F, Kreiser P. Measuring organizational responsiveness:the development of a validated survey instrument. Management Decision,2007,45(10):1573-1594.
[164]Evans P. Blown to bits:How the new economics of information transforms strategy. Harvard Business Press,2000.
[165]Sarker S, Sarker S. Exploring agility in distributed information systems development teams: an interpretive study in an offshoring context. Information Systems Research,2009,20(3): 440-461.
[166]Singh S K, Watson H J, Watson R T. EIS support for the strategic management process. Decision Support Systems,2002,33(1):71-85.
[167]Malhotra A, Gosain S, El Sawy O A. Leveraging standard electronic business interfaces to enable adaptive supply chain partnerships. Information Systems Research,2007,18(3): 260-279.
[168]Sanchez A M, Perez M P. Supply chain flexibility and firm performance:a conceptual model and empirical study in the automotive industry. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,2005,25(7):681-700.
[169]Cohen W M, Levinthal D A. Absorptive capacity:a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative science quarterly,1990:128-152.
[170]Lawson B, Samson D. Developing innovation capability in organisations:a dynamic capabilities approach. International Journal of Innovation Management,2001,5(03): 377-400.
[171]Thomke S H. Capturing the real value of innovation tools. MIT Sloan Management Review, 2006,47(2):24-32.
[172]Child J, Faulkner D. Strategies of cooperation:Managing alliances, networks, and joint ventures. Oxford University,1998.
[173]Sakakibara M. Cooperative research and development:who participates and in which industries do projects take place? Research Policy,2001,30(7):993-1018.
[174]Knudsen M P. The Relative Importance of Interfirm Relationships and Knowledge Transfer for New Product Development Success*. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2007, 24(2):117-138.
[175]Tsai W. Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks:Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of management journal,2001,44(5):996-1004.
[176]Caloghirou Y, Kastelli I, Tsakanikas A. Internal capabilities and external knowledge sources: complements or substitutes for innovative performance? Technovation,2004,24(1):29-39.
[177]Weng R-H, Huang C-Y. The impact of customer knowledge capability and relational capability on new service development performance:The case of health service. Journal of Management & Organization,2012,18(5):608-624.
[178]Hult G T M, Hurley R F, Knight G A. Innovativeness:its antecedents and impact on business performance. Industrial Marketing Management,2004,33(5):429-438.
[179]Jiang X, Li Y. An empirical investigation of knowledge management and innovative performance:The case of alliances. Research Policy,2009,38(2):358-368.
[180]Tomlinson P R, Fai F M. The nature of SME co-operation and innovation:A multi-scalar and multi-dimensional analysis. International Journal of Production Economics,2012.
[181]Nieto M J, Santamaria L. Technological Collaboration:Bridging the Innovation Gap between Small and Large Firms*. Journal of Small Business Management,2010,48(1):44-69.
[182]Nieto M J, Santamaria L. The importance of diverse collaborative networks for the novelty of product innovation. Technovation,2007,27(6):367-377.
[183]Reddy A, Rajendran C. A simulation study of dynamic order-up-to policies in a supply chain with non-stationary customer demand and information sharing. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology,2005,25(9-10):1029-1045.
[184]Kotabe M, Martin X, Domoto H. Gaining from vertical partnerships:knowledge transfer, relationship duration, and supplier performance improvement in the US and Japanese automotive industries. Strategic management journal,2003,24(4):293-316.
[185]Dyer J, Nobeoka K. Creating and managing a high performance knowledge-sharing network: the Toyota case.2002.
[186]Yen Y-X, Hung S-W. How does supplier's asset specificity affect product development performance? A relational exchange perspective. Journal of Business& Industrial Marketing, 2013,28(4):276-287.
[187]Weiss A M, Kurland N. Holding distribution channel relationships together:The role of transaction-specific assets and length of prior relationship. Organization Science,1997,8(6): 612-623.
[188]Hernandez-Espallardo M, Rodriguez-Orejuela A, Sanchez-Perez M. Inter-organizational governance, learning and performance in supply chains. Supply Chain Management:An International Journal,2010,15(2):101-114.
[189]Luo Y, Liu Y, Xue J. Relationship investment and channel performance:an analysis of mediating forces. Journal of Management studies,2009,46(7):1113-1137.
[190]Winter S G. Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic management journal,2003,24(10): 991-995.
[191]Helfat C E, Winter S G. Untangling Dynamic and Operational Capabilities:Strategy for the (N) ever-Changing World. Strategic management journal,2011,32(11):1243-1250.
[192]Chmielewski D A, Paladino A. Driving a resource orientation:reviewing the role of resource and capability characteristics. Management Decision,2007,45(3):462-483.
[193]Drnevich P L, Kriauciunas A P. Clarifying the conditions and limits of the contributions of ordinary and dynamic capabilities to relative firm performance. Strategic management journal,2011,32(3):254-279.
[194]Christopher M, Towill D R. Supply chain migration from lean and functional to agile and customised. Supply Chain Management:An International Journal,2000,5(4):206-213.
[195]Christopher M, Towill D. An integrated model for the design of agile supply chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,2001,31(4): 235-246.
[196]Zhang Q, Vonderembse M A, Lim J-S. Value chain flexibility:a dichotomy of competence and capability. International Journal of Production Research,2002,40(3):561-583.
[197]Zhang Q, Vonderembse M A, Lim J-S. Manufacturing flexibility:defining and analyzing relationships among competence, capability, and customer satisfaction. Journal of Operations Management,2003,21(2):173-191.
[198]Chopra S, Sodhi M. Managing risk to avoid supply-chain breakdown. MIT Sloan Management Review (Fall 2004),2012.
[199]Kleindorfer P R, Saad G H. Managing disruption risks in supply chains. Production and Operations Management,2005,14(1):53-68.
[200]Swafford P M, Ghosh S, Murthy N. The antecedents of supply chain agility of a firm:scale development and model testing. Journal of Operations Management,2006,24(2):170-188.
[201]Ferrier W J, Smith K G, Grimm C M. The role of competitive action in market share erosion and industry dethronement:A study of industry leaders and challengers. Academy of management journal, 1999.42(4):372-388
[202]Wernerfelt B. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic management journal,1984,5(2): 171-180.
[203]Prahalad C, Hamel G. The core competence of the corporation. Boston (MA),1990.
[204]Damanpour F. Organizational innovation:A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of management journal,1991,34(3):555-590.
[205]Henard D H, Szymanski D M. Why some new products are more successful than others. Journal of marketing Research,2001:362-375.
[206]Porter M E, Kramer M R. The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard business review,2002,80(12):56-68.
[207]Lau A K, Tang E, Yam R. Effects of supplier and customer integration on product innovation and performance:empirical evidence in Hong Kong manufacturers. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2010,27(5):761-777.
[208]Rhee J, Park T, Lee D H. Drivers of innovativeness and performance for innovative SMEs in South Korea:Mediation of learning orientation. Technovation,2010,30(1):65-75.
[209]Rosenbusch N, Brinckmann J. Bausch A. Is innovation always beneficial? A meta-analysis of the relationship between innovation and performance in SMEs. Journal of Business Venturing,2011,26(4):441-457.
[210]Mort G S, Weerawardena J. Networking capability and international entrepreneurship:how networks function in Australian born global firms. International Marketing Review,2006, 23(5):549-572.
[211]Terziovski M. Innovation practice and its performance implications in small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the manufacturing sector:a resource - based view. Strategic management journal,2010,31(8):892-902.
[212]Sok P, O'Cass A. Achieving superior innovation-based performance outcomes in SMEs through innovation resource-capability complementarity. Industrial Marketing Management, 2011,40(8):1285-1293.
[213]Manthou V, Vlachopoulou M, Folinas D. Virtual e-Chain (VeC) model for supply chain collaboration. International Journal of Production Economics,2004,87(3):241-250.
[214]Kim G, Shin B, Kim K K, et al. IT capabilities, process-oriented dynamic capabilities, and firm financial performance. Journal of the association for information systems,2011,12(7):
[215]Liao J J, Kickul J R, Ma H. Organizational dynamic capability and innovation:an empirical examination of internet firms. Journal of Small Business Management,2009,47(3):263-286.
[216]Butler T, Murphy C. An exploratory study on IS capabilities and assets in a small-to-medium software enterprise. Journal of Information Technology,2008,23(4):330-344.
[217]Lado A A. Paulraj A, Chen I J. Customer focus, supply-chain relational capabilities and performance:Evidence from US manufacturing industries. International Journal of Logistics Management, The,2011,22(2):202-221.
[218]Edwards J R, Lambert L S. Methods for integrating moderation and mediation:A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods,2007,12(1): 1-22.
[219]温忠麟,侯杰泰,张雷.调节效应与中介效应的比较和应用.心理学报,2005,37(2)：268-274.
[220]Nazir S, Pinsonneault A. IT and Firm Agility:An Electronic Integration Perspective. Journal of the association for information systems,2012,13(3):2.
[221]Aranda D A, Molina-Fernandez L M. Determinants of innovation through a knowledge-based theory lens. Industrial Management & Data Systems,2002,102(5):289-296.
[222]Dyer J H, Hatch N. Using supplier networks to learn faster. MIT Sloan Management Review, spring,2012,200.
[223]Madhok A, Tallman S B. Resources, transactions and rents:managing value through interfirm collaborative relationships. Organization Science,1998,9(3):326-339.
[224]Lee Y, Cavusgil S T. Enhancing alliance performance:The effects of contractual-based versus relational-based governance. Journal of business research,2006,59(8):896-905.
[225]Claro D P, Hagelaar G, Omta O. The determinants of relational governance and performance: how to manage business relationships? Industrial Marketing Management,2003,32(8): 703-716.
[226]Gligor D M, Holcomb M C. Antecedents and Consequences of Supply Chain Agility: Establishing the Link to Firm Performance. Journal of Business Logistics,2012,33(4): 295-308.
[227]Li X, Goldsby T J, Holsapple C W. Supply chain agility:scale development. International Journal of Logistics Management, The,2009,20(3):408-424.
[228]Schreiner M, Kale P, Corsten D. What really is alliance management capability and how does it impact alliance outcomes and success? Strategic management journal,2009,30(13): 1395-1419.
[229]Mohr J, Spekman R. Characteristics of partnership success:partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques. Strategic management journal, 1994,15(2):135-152.
[230]Molller K, Wilson D T. Business marketing:An interaction and network perspective. Springer, 1995.
[231]Wong A, Tjosvold D, Zhang P. Developing relationships in strategic alliances:commitment to quality and cooperative interdependence. Industrial Marketing Management,2005,34(7): 722-731.
[232]Wucherer K. Business partnering—A driving force for innovation. Industrial Marketing Management,2006,35(1):91-102.
[233]Xu G, Liu X, Zhou Y, et al. Effects of relational embeddedness on technological innovation: An empirical study in China. Chinese Management Studies,2012,6(1):108-123.
[234]Lowik S, Van Rossum D, Kraaijenbrink J, et al. Strong Ties as Sources of New Knowledge: How Small Firms Innovate through Bridging Capabilities*. Journal of Small Business Management,2012,50(2):239-256.
[235]Stock G N, Tatikonda M V. The joint influence of technology uncertainty and interorganizational interaction on external technology integration success. Journal of Operations Management,2008,26(1):65-80.
[236]Tiwana A, Konsynski B. Complementarities between organizational IT architecture and governance structure. Information Systems Research,2010, Articles in Advance:1-17.
[237]Cai S, Jun M, Yang Z. Implementing supply chain information integration in China:The role of institutional forces and trust. Journal of Operations Management,2010,28(3):257-268.
[238]Han K, Oh W, Im K S, et al. Value cocreation and wealth spillover in open innovation alliances. MIS Quarterly,2012,36(1):291-325.
[239]Grover V, Kohli R. Cocreating IT Value:New Capabilities and Metrics for Multifirm Environments. MIS Quarterly,2012,36(1):225-232.
[240]Novak S, Eppinger S D. Sourcing by design:product complexity and the supply chain. Management science,2001,47(1):189-204.
[241]Fisher M L. What is the right supply chain for your product? Harvard business review,1997, 75:105-117.
[242]Saeed K A, Malhotra M K, Grover V. Examining the impact of interorganizational systems on process efficiency and sourcing leverage in buyer-supplier dyads. Decision Sciences,2005, 36(3):365-396.
[243]Nambisan S. Designing virtual customer environments for new product development:Toward a theory. Academy of management review,2002,27(3):392-413.
[244]Zaheer A, Zaheer S. Catching the wave:alertness, responsiveness, and market influence in global electronic networks. Management science,1997,43(11):1493-1509.
[245]Littunen H. Networks and local environmental characteristics in the survival of new firms. Small Business Economics,2000,15(1):59-71.
[246]Atuahene - Gima K. An exploratory analysis of the impact of market orientation on new product performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management,1995,12(4):275-293.
[247]Chaveerug A, Ussahawanitchakit P. Learning orientation, innovation capability, and organizational performance in Thai audit firms:moderating effects of organization climate and uncertainty environment. Review of Business Research,2008,8(2):92-102.
[248]Russell R D, Russell C J. An examination of the effects of organizational norms, organizational structure, and environmental uncertainty on entrepreneurial strategy. Journal of management,1992,18(4):639-656.
[249]Meyer M H, Utterback J M. Product development cycle time and commercial success. Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on,1995,42(4):297-304.
[250]Phromket C, Ussahawanitchakit P. Effects of organizational learning effectiveness on innovation outcomes and export performance of garments business in Thailand. International Journal of Business Research,2009,9(7):6-31.
[251]Carbonell P, Rodriguez A I. The impact of market characteristics and innovation speed on perceptions of positional advantage and new product performance. International Journal of Research in Marketing,2006,23(1):1-12.
[252]Fiol C M. Revisiting an identity-based view of sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of management,2001,27(6):691-699.
[253]Freel M S. Perceived environmental uncertainty and innovation in small firms. Small Business Economics,2005,25(1):49-64.
[254]Cannon J P, Perreault Jr W D. Buyer-seller relationships in business markets. Journal of marketing research,1999:439-460.
[255]Flynn B B, Flynn E J. Information-Processing Alternatives for Coping with Manufacturing Environment Complexity. Decision Sciences,1999,30(4):1021-1052.
[256]Ward P T, Duray R, Keong Leong G, et al. Business environment, operations strategy, and performance:an empirical study of Singapore manufacturers. Journal of operations Management,1995,13(2):99-115.
[257]Kohli A K, Jaworski B J. Market orientation:the construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. The Journal of Marketing,1990:1-18.
[258]Auh S, Menguc B. Balancing exploration and exploitation:The moderating role of competitive intensity. Journal of business research,2005,58(12):1652-1661.
[259]Castrogiovanni G J. Organization task environments:Have they changed fundamentally over time? Journal of Management,2002,28(2):129-150.
[260]Sirmon D G, Hitt M A, Arregle J L, et al. The dynamic interplay of capability strengths and weaknesses:investigating the bases of temporary competitive advantage. Strategic management journal,2010,31(13):1386-1409.
[261]Lusch R F, Laczniak G R. The evolving marketing concept, competitive intensity and organizational performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,1987,15(3): 1-11.
[262]Berghman L, Matthyssens P, Streukens S, et al. Deliberate learning mechanisms for stimulating strategic innovation capacity. Long range planning,2012.
[263]Clemons E K, Reddi S P, Row M C. The Impact of Information Technology on the Organization of Economic Activity:The" Move to the Middle55 Hypothesis. Journal of management information systems,1993,10(2):9-35.
[264]Kumar K, Van Dissel H G. Sustainable collaboration:managing conflict and cooperation in interorganizational systems. Mis Quarterly,1996:279-300.
[265]Dwyer F R, Oh S. Output sector munificence effects on the internal political economy of marketing channels. Journal of Marketing Research,1987:347-358.
[266]Konsynski B, Tiwana A. The improvisation-efficiency paradox in inter-firm electronic networks:governance and architecture considerations. Journal of Information Technology, 2004,19(4):234-243.
[267]Choudhury V. Strategic choices in the development of interorganizational information systems. Information Systems Research,1997,8(1):1-24.
[268]Vaaland T 1, Hakansson H. Exploring interorganizational conflict in complex projects. Industrial Marketing Management,2003,32(2):127-138.