سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

کریمی, مهدی, نمامیان, فرشید, وفایی, فرهاد, مرادی, علیرضا. (1399). شناسایی و ارزیابی شاخص‌های کارآفرینی و نوآوری شرکت‌های بین‌المللی هوشمند با استفاده از DEMATEL-ANP. , 10(4), 117-154. doi: 10.52547/jimp.10.4.117
مهدی کریمی; فرشید نمامیان; فرهاد وفایی; علیرضا مرادی. "شناسایی و ارزیابی شاخص‌های کارآفرینی و نوآوری شرکت‌های بین‌المللی هوشمند با استفاده از DEMATEL-ANP". , 10, 4, 1399, 117-154. doi: 10.52547/jimp.10.4.117
کریمی, مهدی, نمامیان, فرشید, وفایی, فرهاد, مرادی, علیرضا. (1399). 'شناسایی و ارزیابی شاخص‌های کارآفرینی و نوآوری شرکت‌های بین‌المللی هوشمند با استفاده از DEMATEL-ANP', , 10(4), pp. 117-154. doi: 10.52547/jimp.10.4.117
کریمی, مهدی, نمامیان, فرشید, وفایی, فرهاد, مرادی, علیرضا. شناسایی و ارزیابی شاخص‌های کارآفرینی و نوآوری شرکت‌های بین‌المللی هوشمند با استفاده از DEMATEL-ANP. , 1399; 10(4): 117-154. doi: 10.52547/jimp.10.4.117

شناسایی و ارزیابی شاخص‌های کارآفرینی و نوآوری شرکت‌های بین‌المللی هوشمند با استفاده از DEMATEL-ANP

چشم‌انداز مدیریت صنعتی
دوره 10، شماره 4 - شماره پیاپی 40، دی 1399، صفحه 117-154    اصل مقاله (796.89 K)
نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.52547/jimp.10.4.117
نویسندگان
مهدی کریمی1؛ فرشید نمامیان* 2؛ فرهاد وفایی3؛ علیرضا مرادی4
1دانشجوی دکتری، گروه مدیریت صنعتی، واحد کرمانشاه، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، کرمانشاه، ایران.
2استادیار، گروه مدیریت بازرگانی، واحد کرمانشاه، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، کرمانشاه، ایران.
3استادیار، گروه مدیریت بازرگانی، دانشکده علوم انسانی و اجتماعی، دانشگاه کردستان، سنندج، ایران.
4استادیار، گروه اقتصاد، واحد کرمانشاه، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، کرمانشاه، ایران.
چکیده
با توجه به حیاتی بودن کارآفرینی و وابستگی آن به نوآوری، این پژوهش به دنبال ارائه یک روش تلفیقی برای تخمین اولویت‌بندی شاخص‌های کارآفرینی و نوآوری با بهره‌گیری از روش‌های تصمیم‌گیری چندمعیاره (MCDM) شامل ابعاد فردی، سازمانی و فرهنگی است. سپس در چارچوب روش فراترکیب، تلفیقی از یافته‌ها در قالب دسته‌بندی شاخص‌ها معرفی شد. بر مبنای روش فراتحلیل نظر خبرگان حوزه کارآفرینی و نوآوری گردآوری شد؛ همچنین به دو روش فرآیند تحلیل شبکه‌ای (ANP) و آزمایشگاه ارزیابی و امتحان تصمیم‌گیری (DEMATEL) فرایند ارزیابی، شناسایی وزن­ها و اولویت‌بندی شاخص‌ها صورت پذیرفت. این پژوهش به‌وضوح نشان داد که توانایی‌های فردی زمینه‌ساز خلق نوآوری و کارآفرینی در سازمان هستند و قابلیت‌های سازمان باید فضا و امکانات متناسب را در اختیار فرد قرار دهد تا به این دو مهم فعلیت بخشد. مهم‌ترین معیارها به­ترتیب انگیزه شغلی با وزن 3578/0 و آموزش و یادگیری در قالب سطح مهارت فردی با وزن 1240/0 شناخته شدند. مهم‌ترین گزینه که می‌تواند به‌عنوان هدف و الگو قرار گیرد، شرکت اول از سه شرکت تابعه شرکت بین‌المللی کیسون است که از منظر اولویت بهترین جایگاه را با وزن بالای 4498/0 به خود اختصاص داده است. شرکت‌های بعدی به‌­ترتیب با وزن­های 2579/0 و 2132/0 در جایگاه‌های دوم و سوم قرار گرفتند.
کلیدواژه‌ها
کارآفرینی؛ نوآوری؛ تصمیم‌گیری چندمعیاره؛ ANP؛ DEMATEL
عنوان مقاله [English]
Identifying and Evaluating the Entrepreneurship and Innovation Indicators of Smart International Companies Using DEMATEL-ANP
نویسندگان [English]
Mehdi Karimi1؛ Farshid Namamian2؛ Farhad Vafaei3؛ Alireza Moradi4
1Ph.D Student, Islamic Azad University, Kermanshah Branch.
2Assistant Professor, Islamic Azad University, Kermanshah Branch.
3Assistant Professor, University of Kurdistan.
4Assistant Professor, Islamic Azad University, Kermanshah Branch.
چکیده [English]
Today, with the development of societies, entrepreneurship is vital, and so is the sustainability of an innovative entrepreneurial company. The main motive of this paper is to present a compilation methodology for estimating the priority of entrepreneurship and innovation indicators using multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods, so that the three key criteria for individual, organizational and cultural dimensions are simultaneously involved in this decision. Then, a combination of the findings was obtained which is introduced in the form of a categorization of indicators. Next, based on the method of analysis, experts from the field of entrepreneurship and innovation were gathered. The process of evaluation, weight identification and prioritization of indicators was also carried out by two methods of analytical network process (ANP) and a decision-making and assessment exam and laboratory (DEMATEL). This study clearly showed that individual abilities are the basis for creating innovation and entrepreneurship in the organization and the capabilities of the organization should provide the appropriate space and facilities to the individual to actualize these two. The most important criteria were job motivation with a weight of 0.3578, and training and learning in the form of individual skill level with a weight of 0.1240, respectively. The most important alternative that can be used as a target and model is the first of three subsidiaries of Kayson International Company, which has the best position in terms of priority with a weight above 0.4498. The next companies were in the second and third places with weights of 0.2579 and 0.2132, respectively.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
Entrepreneurship, Innovation, Multi-criteria Decision Making, ANP, DEMATEL
مراجع
  1. Adeel, M. M., Khan, H. G. A., Zafar, N., & Rizvi, S. T. (2018). Passive leadership and its relationship with organizational justice: Verifying mediating role of affect-based trust. Journal of Management Development, 37(2), 212-223.
  2. Ansari, F., (2009). Valuable Employers of the Company through Innovation and Interactive Companies in (SMES), International Conference on Management in Management, Business and Economic and Economic Trade, as well as Arvin Alborz Conference Company. (In Persian)
  3. Backes-Gellner, U., & Werner, A. (2007). Entrepreneurial signaling via education: A success factor in innovative start-ups. Small Business Economics, 29(1-2), 173-190.
  4. Battistella, C., De Toni, A. F., De Zan, G., & Pessot, E. (2017). Cultivating business model agility through focused capabilities: A multiple case study. Journal of Business Research, 73, 65-82.
  5. Bill, V., & Fayard, A. L. (2017, June). Building an entrepreneurial and innovative culture in a university makerspace. In ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings (Vol. 2017).
  6. Brown, T. E., & Ulijn, J. M. (Eds.). (2004). Innovation, entrepreneurship and culture: the interaction between technology, progress and economic growth. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  7. Chen, J. K., & Chen, I. S. (2010). Using a novel conjunctive MCDM approach based on DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP, and TOPSIS as an innovation support system for Taiwanese higher education. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(3), 1981-1990.
  8. Chou, P. B., Bandera, C., & Thomas, E. (2017). A behavioural game theory perspective on the collaboration between innovative and entrepreneurial firms. International Journal of Work Innovation, 2(1), 6-31.
  9. Chua, R. Y., & Morris, M. (2009). Innovation communication in multicultural networks: Deficits in inter-cultural capability and affect-based trust as barriers to new idea sharing in inter-cultural relationships.
  10. Dyer, R. F., & Forman, E. H. (1992). Group decision support with the analytic hierarchy process. Decision support systems, 8(2), 99-124.
  11. Ebrahimi Khameneh, M. (2018). Summary of Creativity and Innovation in Entrepreneurship for Guidance and Innovation in New Work and Work, Fifth Applied Scientific Conferences in Management and Accounting, Tehran, Iran Management Association. (In Persian)
  12. Gabus, A., & Fontela, E. (1976). The DEMATEL observer. Battelle Geneva Research Center, Geneva, Switzerland.
  13. Garshasbi Fakhr, S. (2009). Effective Entrepreneurship and Innovation of Borzour, National Conference on Economics, Management and Entrepreneurship Management Using Iranian Goods, Zahedan, Sistan and Baluchestan Scientific Management. (In Persian)
  14. Gharib, A. H., Azar, A., Moqbel Ba'riz, A., Dehghan Nairi, M. (2019). Designing a Model for Measuring Organizational Innovation with a Dynamic Network Data Envelopment Analysis Approach (Case Study: One Country Level Universities). Industrial Management Perspectives, 9(1), 9-29. (In Persian)
  15. Giraudo, E., Giudici, G., & Grilli, L. (2019). Entrepreneurship policy and the financing of young innovative companies: Evidence from the Italian Startup Act. Research Policy, 48(9), 1-18.
  16. Gong, Y., Wang, M., Huang, J. C., & Cheung, S. Y. (2017). Toward a goal orientation–based feedback-seeking typology: Implications for employee performance outcomes. Journal of Management, 43(4), 1234-1260.
  17. Gorji, A. M. H., Darabinia, M., & Ranjbar, M. (2017). Relationship between emotional intelligence and job motivation among faculty staff in Mazandaran University of medical sciences, Iran. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, 11(2), 1-5.
  18. Gunawan, T., Jacob, J., & Duysters, G. (2016). Network ties and entrepreneurial orientation: Innovative performance of SMEs in a developing country. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(2), 575-599.
  19. Gür, U., Oylumlu, İ. S., & Kunday, Ö. (2017). Critical assessment of entrepreneurial and innovative universities index of Turkey: Future directions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 123, 161-168.
  20. Hallikainen, P., Kivijärvi, H., & Tuominen, M. (2009). Supporting the module sequencing decision in the ERP implementation process—An application of the ANP method. International Journal of Production Economics, 119(2), 259-270.
  21. Herbig, P., Golden, J. E., & Dunphy, S. (1994). The relationship of structure to entrepreneurial and innovative success. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 12(9), 37-48.
  22. Hori, S., & Shimizu, Y. (1999). Designing methods of human interface for supervisory control systems. Control engineering practice, 7(11), 1413-1419.
  23. Huang, J. W., & Li, Y. H. (2017). Green innovation and performance: The view of organizational capability and social reciprocity. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(2), 309-324.
  24. Huang, Y. C., & Jim Wu, Y. C. (2010). The effects of organizational factors on green new product success: Evidence from high-tech industries in Taiwan. Management Decision, 48(10), 1539-1567.
  25. Huggins, K. A., White, D. W., & Stahl, J. (2016). Antecedents to sales force job motivation and performance: The critical role of emotional intelligence and affect-based trust in retailing managers. International Journal of Sales, Retailing & Marketing, 6, 27-37.
  26. Hunt, J. (2011). Which immigrants are most innovative and entrepreneurial? Distinctions by entry visa. Journal of Labor Economics, 29(3), 417-457.
  27. Jafari, M., Akhavan, P., & Nikookar, M. (2013). Personal knowledge management and organization's competency: a service organization case study. Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues, 6(3/4), 181-194.
  28. Jafari-Moghadam, S., Zali, M., & Sanaeepour, H. (2017). Tourism entrepreneurship policy: a hybrid MCDM model combining DEMATEL and ANP (DANP). Decision Science Letters, 6(3), 233-250.
  29. Jansen, J. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2005). Managing potential and realized absorptive capacity: how do organizational antecedents matter?. Academy of management journal, 48(6), 999-1015.
  30. Karpen, I. O., Gemser, G., & Calabretta, G. (2017). A multilevel consideration of service design conditions: towards a portfolio of organisational capabilities, interactive practices and individual abilities. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 27(2), 384-407.
  31. Karsak, E. E. (2002). Distance-based fuzzy MCDM approach for evaluating flexible manufacturing system alternatives. International Journal of Production Research, 40(13), 3167-3181.
  32. Kermani, M. A. M. A., Nasiri, M., & Aliahmadi, M. H. (2010). A decision-aid in supplier selection for entrepreneurs, using nested-design, MODM and FAHP. International Journal of E-Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 1(2), 14-29.
  33. Klinge, C. M. (2015). A conceptual framework for mentoring in a learning organization. Adult learning, 26(4), 160-166.
  34. Korhonen, A., Hakulinen‐Viitanen, T., Jylhä, V., & Holopainen, A. (2013). Meta‐synthesis and evidence‐based health care–a method for systematic review. Scandinavian journal of caring sciences, 27(4), 1027-1034.
  35. Kożuch, B., & Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek, K. (2016). Inter-organisational coordination for sustainable local governance: Public safety management in Poland. Sustainability, 8(2), 123.
  36. Löfsten, H. (2016). Organisational capabilities and the long-term survival of new technology-based firms. European Business Review, 28(3), 312-332.
  37. Lu, M. T., Tzeng, G. H., & Tang, L. L. (2013). Environmental strategic orientations for improving green innovation performance in fuzzy environment-Using new fuzzy hybrid MCDM model. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 15(3), 297-316.
  38. Luke, B., Verreynne, M. L., & Kearins, K. (2010). Innovative and entrepreneurial activity in the public sector: The changing face of public sector institutions. Innovation, 12(2), 138-153.
  39. Matthews, R. L., MacCarthy, B. L., & Braziotis, C. (2017). Organisational learning in SMEs: a process improvement perspective. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 37(7), 970-1006.
  40. Min, K. R., Ugaddan, R. G., & Park, S. M. (2016). Is the creative tendency affected by organizational leadership and employee empowerment? An empirical analysis of US federal employees. Public Performance & Management Review, 40(2), 382-408.
  41. Mohammadi, G., Sajjadi, S. M., & Sokhdari, K. (2019). Entrepreneurial decision-making model: a hybrid approach. Industrial Management Perspectives, 9(3), 87-108. (In Persian)
  42. Mone, E. M., & London, M. (2018). Employee engagement through effective performance management: A practical guide for managers. Routledge.
  43. Naeem, A., Mirza, N. H., Ayyub, R. M., & Lodhi, R. N. (2017). HRM practices and faculty’s knowledge sharing behavior: mediation of affective commitment and affect-based trust. Studies in Higher Education, 44(3), 1-14.
  44. Navimipour, N. J., & Zareie, B. (2015). A model for assessing the impact of e-learning systems on employees’ satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 475-485.
  45. Newman, A., Herman, H. M., Schwarz, G., & Nielsen, I. (2018). The effects of employees' creative self-efficacy on innovative behavior: The role of entrepreneurial leadership. Journal of Business Research, 89, 1-9.
  46. Newman, A., Kiazad, K., Miao, Q., & Cooper, B. (2014). Examining the cognitive and affective trust-based mechanisms underlying the relationship between ethical leadership and organisational citizenship: A case of the head leading the heart? Journal of Business Ethics, 123(1), 113-123.
  47. Niemira, M. P., & Saaty, T. L. (2004). An analytic network process model for financial-crisis forecasting. International Journal of Forecasting, 20(4), 573-587.
  48. Nijp, H. H., Beckers, D. G., Kompier, M. A., van den Bossche, S. N., & Geurts, S. A. (2015). Worktime control access, need and use in relation to work–home interference, fatigue, and job motivation. Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health, 41(4), 347-355.
  49. Ogbonnaya, C., Daniels, K., & Nielsen, K. (2017). Does contingent pay encourage positive employee attitudes and intensify work? Human Resource Management Journal, 27(1), 94-112.
  50. Paik, Y., Kang, S., & Seamans, R. (2019). Entrepreneurship, innovation, and political competition: How the public sector helps the sharing economy create value. Strategic Management Journal, 40(4), 503-532.
  51. Parte-Esteban, L., & Alberca-Oliver, P. (2015). New insights into dynamic efficiency: the effects of firm factors. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(1), 107-129.
  52. Pérez-Luño, A., Wiklund, J., & Cabrera, R. V. (2011). The dual nature of innovative activity: How entrepreneurial orientation influences innovation generation and adoption. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(5), 555-571.
  53. Poledníková, E., & Kashi, K. (2014, November). Using MCDM Methods: Evaluation of Regional Innovation Performance in the Czech Republic. In european Conference on management, leadership & Governance (p. 487). Academic Conferences International Limited.
  54. Qajani, H. A. & Vahedi Ski, M. (2009). Study of Organizational Cultural Relations and Entrepreneurship entitled Innovation, National Conference on Entrepreneurship at the disposal of information resources, Babolsar, Mazandaran University. (In Persian)
  55. Qelich Lee, B., Rajabi Shahrabadi, E. (1393). Study of the relationship between knowledge creation, technology-based innovation and organizational agility (Case study: Iran Alloy Steel Company). Industrial Management Perspectives, 4(4), 95-116. (In Persian)
  56. Ravi Sankar, N., & Prabhu, B. S. (2001). Modified approach for prioritization of failures in a system failure mode and effects analysis. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 18(3), 324-336.
  57. Rexhepi, G., Hisrich, R. D., & Ramadani, V. (2019). Open Innovation and Entrepreneurship: An Overview. In Open Innovation and Entrepreneurship (pp. 1-7). Springer, Cham.
  58. Rezaei, J., Ortt, R., & Scholten, V. (2013). An improved fuzzy preference programming to evaluate entrepreneurship orientation. Applied Soft Computing, 13(5), 2749-2758.
  59. Rostamzadeh, R., Ismail, K., & Bodaghi Khajeh Noubar, H. (2014). An application of a hybrid MCDM method for the evaluation of entrepreneurial intensity among the SMEs: a case study. The Scientific World Journal, 2014(1), 1-16.
  60. Sa’ari, H., Idrus, M., & Tahir, M. R. M. (2018). Reinforcement Innovative Behavior as an Outcome of Entrepreneurial Competencies: From the Perspectives of Librarianship Landscape. Advanced Science Letters, 24(1), 187-189.
  61. Saaty, T.L. (1996). The Analytic Network Process—Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA.
  62. Salehzadeh, R., Pool, J. K., Mohseni, A. M., & Tahani, G. (2017). Factors influencing organisational performance: the role of knowledge sharing and organisational agility. International Journal of Business Excellence, 11(3), 344-356.
  63. Sallnäs, U. (2016). Coordination to manage dependencies between logistics service providers and shippers: An environmental perspective. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 46(3), 316-340.
  64. Salter, K., Hellings, C., Foley, N., & Teasell, R. (2008). The experience of living with stroke: a qualitative meta-synthesis. Journal of rehabilitation medicine, 40(8), 595-602.
  65. Santandreu-Mascarell, C., Garzon, D., & Knorr, H. (2013). Entrepreneurial and innovative competences, are they the same? Management Decision, 51(5), 1084-1095.
  66. Sarkar, M. B., Echambadi, R., Agarwal, R., & Sen, B. (2006). The effect of the innovative environment on exit of entrepreneurial firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(6), 519-539.
  67. Seyed-Hosseini, S. M., Safaei, N., & Asgharpour, M. J. (2006). Reprioritization of failures in a system failure mode and effects analysis by decision making trial and evaluation laboratory technique. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 91(8), 872-881.
  68. Sha’ari, I., Kassim, N. A., & Baharuddin, K. (2018). Personal Knowledge Management Capability of Apprentices in Malaysian Technical and Vocational Education and Training. International Journal of Learning and Development, 8(1), 184-193.
  69. Sharma, S., Conduit, J., & Hill, S. R. (2014). Organisational capabilities for customer participation in health care service innovation. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 22(3), 179-188.
  70. Shih, K. H., Lin, W. R., Wang, Y. H., & Hung, T. E. (2013). Applying DEMATEL-ANP for assessing organizational information system development decisions. In Management, Knowledge and Learning International Conference (pp. 349-365).
  71. Shollo, A., & Galliers, R. D. (2016). Towards an understanding of the role of business intelligence systems in organisational knowing. Information Systems Journal, 26(4), 339-367.
  72. Shuradze, G., Bogodistov, Y., & Wagner, H. T. (2018). The Role of Marketing-Enabled Data Analytics Capability and Organisational Agility for Innovation: Empirical Evidence from German Firms. International Journal of Innovation Management, 22(04), 1850037.
  73. Tabarniami, M. & Ansari, M. (2018). Innovation, Summary and Entrepreneurship in the Organization, 3rd National Conference on New Approaches in Education and Research, Mahmoudabad, ISR Scientific Research Institute - State Specialized and Specialized University - Education and Mahmoudabad. (In Persian).
  74. Toms, S., Wilson, N., & Wright, M. (2019). Innovation, intermediation, and the nature of entrepreneurship: A historical perspective. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 14, 105– 121.
  75. Tsai, W. (2002). Social structure of “coopetition” within a multiunit organization: Coordination, competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing. Organization science, 13(2), 179-190.
  76. Tseng, M. L. (2009). Application of ANP and DEMATEL to evaluate the decision-making of municipal solid waste management in Metro Manila. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 156(1-4), 181.
  77. Tseng, M. L. (2011). Using a hybrid MCDM model to evaluate firm environmental knowledge management in uncertainty. Applied Soft Computing, 11(1), 1340-1352.
  78. Tseng, M. L., Lin, Y. H., Lim, M. K., & Teehankee, B. L. (2015). Using a hybrid method to evaluate service innovation in the hotel industry. Applied Soft Computing, 28, 411-421.
  79. van Knippenberg, D. (2018). Reconsidering Affect-Based Trust: A new research agenda. In The Routledge Companion to Trust (pp. 3-13). Routledge.
  80. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2010). From repeat patronage to value co-creation in service ecosystems: a transcending conceptualization of relationship. Journal of Business Market Management, 4(4), 169-179.
  81. Vixathep, S., & Phonvisay, A. (2019). Human Capital, Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Micro and Small Businesses in Laos. In Innovation in Developing Countries (pp. 99-121). Springer, Singapore.
  82. von Bloh, J., Broekel, T., Özgun, B., & Sternberg, R. (2019). New (s) data for entrepreneurship research? An innovative approach to use big data on media coverage. Small Business Economics, 55, 1-22.
  83. Walsh, D., & Downe, S. (2005). Meta‐synthesis method for qualitative research: a literature review. Journal of advanced nursing, 50(2), 204-211.
  84. Wu, G. (2018). Coordinated decision making on inter-organisational knowledge innovation of project-based supply chain. International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Management, 32(2), 124-138.
  85. Wu, W. W., & Lee, Y. T. (2007). Developing global managers’ competencies using the fuzzy DEMATEL method. Expert systems with applications, 32(2), 499-507.
  86. Yuan, X., Olfman, L., & Yi, J. (2016). How do institution-based trust and interpersonal trust affect interdepartmental knowledge sharing? Information Resources Management Journal (IRMJ), 29(1), 15-38.
  87. Zahra, S., Iram, A., & Naeem, H. (2014). Employee training and its effect on employees’ job motivation and commitment: Developing and proposing a conceptual model. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 16(9), 60-68.
  88. Zareie, B., & Navimipour, N. J. (2016). The effect of electronic learning systems on the employee's commitment. The International Journal of Management Education, 14(2), 167-175.
  89. Zhang, M. (2018). Cross-Cultural Reliability and Validity of a Scale to Measure International Entrepreneurial Capability in Emerging Markets. Journal of Asia-Pacific Business, 19(1), 23-35.
  90. Zimmer, L. (2006). Qualitative meta‐synthesis: a question of dialoguing with texts. Journal of advanced nursing, 53(3), 311-318
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 3,971
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 2,763