ENDÜSTRİYEL ÇEVİK İŞLETME İÇİN DENGELENMİŞ BAŞARI GÖSTERGELERİ

Durumsallık yaklaşımı ile başlayıp, kompleksite, kaos ve karmaşıklık kuramlarına uzanan, küreselleşme ve Endüstri 4.0 kavramları ile işletmelerde vücut bulan dinamik rekabet unsurları, yıkıcı inovasyon yaklaşımları ile birlikte işletmeleri hiç olmadığı kadar tehdit etmektedir. Yoğunlukla üretim ve yazılım alanlarında doksanlı yıllarda ortaya çıkan çeviklik kavramının, günümüzde endüstriyel işletmelerin faaliyet gösterdikleri sektörlerden bağımsız olarak, yapı, süreç ve stratejilerine göre uyarlanması ve kazanılması zorunlu olan bir yetenek hâline gelmiştir. Çalışmada örgütsel çeviklik kavramı, mümkün kılan destekleyiciler ve gerekli olan yetenekler bağlamında kapsamlı olarak incelenmiştir. Kaplan & Norton tarafından geliştirilmiş olan Dengeli Başarı Göstergesi çerçevesinde işletmelerin mevcut strateji ölçütlerine boyutsal olarak ilave edilebilecek bir yönetim aracı olarak özetlenmeye çalışılmıştır. İleride yapılabilecek çalışmalarla bu ölçütleri uygulayan ve uygulamayan işletmeler mukayese edilerek, çerçevenin tutarlılığı ölçülebilecektir.

Starting with the contingency approach and extending to the theories of complexity, chaos and complexity, dynamic competition elements embodying the enterprises with the concepts of globalization and industry 4.0, threaten the businesses more than ever with their destructive innovation approaches. The concept of agility emerged primarily in the fields of production and software in the nineties. Today's industrial businesses have to gain the concept of agility as a management set adapted to their structure, process and strategies, regardless of the sectors in which they operate. In the study, the concept of organizational agility was comprehensively examined in the context of enablers and necessary capabilities, and is summarized as a management tool that can be added to the existing strategy criteria of businesses within the framework of Balanced Scorecard developed by Kaplan and Norton. With future studies, the consistency of the framework can be measured by comparing businesses that apply and do not apply these criteria.

Kaynakça

Ali, I. (2016). Doing the organizational tango: Symbiotic relationship between formal and informal organizational structures for an agile organization. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, 11, 55-72.

Ambrose, C. & Morello, D. (2004). Designing the Agile Organization: Design Principles and Practices, Gartner.

Attaran, M. (2017). The Rise of 3-D Printing: The Advantages of Additive Manufacturing Over Traditional Manufacturing, Business Horizons, 60(5), 677-688.

Azuma, R. T. (1997). A Survey of Augmented Reality, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 6(4), 355-385.

Bahrami, M., Kiani, M., Montazeralfaraj, R., Zadeh, H., Zadeh, M. (2016). The Mediating Role of Organizational Learning in the Relationship of Organizational Intelligence and Organizational Agility. Osong Public Health and Research Perspectives, 7, 10.1016/j.phrp.2016.04.007.

Beck, K., Beedle, M., Bennekum, A. van, Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., vd. (2001). Manifesto for Agile Software Development. Available from http://agilemanifesto.org/ (Erişim Tarihi: 20 Şubat 2019).

Burns, T. & Stalker, G. (1961). The Management of Innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Cai, Z., Liu, H., Huang, Q. & Liang, L. (2019). Developing organizational agility in product innovation: the roles of IT capability, KM capability, and innovative climate, R&D mangement, 49 (4), 421-438.

Cameron, K.S. & Quinn, R.E. 1999. Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework, 1st ed.; Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, USA.

Carvalho, A. M., Sampaio, P., Rebentisch E. &Saraiva, P. (2017). Quality, excellence and culture in the pursuit of organizational agility, 2017 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), Singapore, 1714-1718.

Chai, N. (2009). Sustainability performance evaluation system in government: a balanced scorecard approach towards sustainable development, Newyork, Springer.

Conboy, K. & Fitzgerald, B. (2004). Toward a conceptual framework of agile methods: A study of agility in different disciplines. WISER 2004 - ACM Workshop on Interdisciplinary Software Engineering Research. 37-44. 10.1145/1029997.1030005.

De Meuse, K. (2017). Learning agility: Its evolution as a psychological construct and its empirical relationship to leader success. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 69, 267-295.

Demigha, S., Kharabsheh, R. (2019). Agile and Organizational Learning. Proceedings of the International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management & Organizational Learning, 97-106.

Deshpandé, R.; Farley, J.U.; Webster, F.E., Jr. (1993). Corporate culture, customer orientation, and innovativeness in Japanese firms: A quadrad analysis. Journal of Marketing, 57, 23–37.

Doty, H. D., Glick, H. W., Huber P. G. (1993). Fit, equifinality, and organizational effectiveness: a test of two configurational theories. Academy of Managemet Journal , 36 (6), 1196-1250.

Drazin, R. & Van de Ven, H. A. (1985). Alternative Forms of Fit in Contingency Theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30 (4), 514-539.

Dyer, L. & Schafer, R. (2003) ‘Dynamic Organizations: Achieving Marketplace and Organizational Agility with People’, in Peterson, R.S. and Mannix, E.A. (eds.) Leading and Managing People in the Dynamic Organization. 7 – 40.

Felipe, C.M., Roldan, J. L., Rodriguez, A.L. (2017). Impact of Organizational Culture Values on Organizational Agility. Sustainability, 9, 2354.

Forster, K., & Wendler, R. (2012). Theorien und Konzepte zu Agilit at in Organisationen (Tech. Rep. No. 63). Dresden: Technische Universitat Dresden. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:14-qucosa-129603 (Erişim Tarihi: 20 Şubat 2019).

Grant, R. (1996). Prospering in dynamically-competitive environment: Organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science, 7, 375-387.

Gunasekaran, A. (1998). Agile Manufacturing: Enablers and an Implementation Framework. International Journal of Production Research, 36, 1223-1247.

Gzara, L., Verjus, H. & Triaa, W., (2016). Organizational Agility Key Factors for Dynamic Business Process Management. IEEE 18th Conference on Business Informatics (CBI), Paris, 64-73.

Hashimoto, T. (1980). Robustness, reliability, resilience and vulnerability criteria for planning. Water Resources Research, 8 (1), 11-47.

Huang, C. C. (1999). An agile approach to logical network analysis in decision support systems. Decision Support Systems, 25(1), 53-70.

Hubbart, E. E. (2004). The diversity scorecard: Evaluating the impact of diversity on organizational performance, İngiltere, Butterworth Heinemann.

Iacocca Institute. (1991). 21st Century Manufacturing Enterprise Strategy: An Industry-Led View. Bethlehem, PA: Iacocca Institute, Lehigh University.

İleri, Y., ve Soylu, Y. (2014). Bir rekabet üstünlüğü aracı olarak çeviklik kavramı ve örgüt yapısına olası etkileri, Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Meslek Yüksekokulu Dergisi, 13 (1-2) , 13-28. İmamoğlu S, Z., İnce, H ve Türkcan,

H., (2021). Endüstri 4.0 uygulamalarının örgütsel çeviklik üzerindeki etkisi: kavramsal bir çalışma. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 35(1),103-124.

Kanten, P., Kanten, S. Keceli, M. & Z. Zaimoglu (2017). The antecedents of organizational agility: organizational structure, dynamic capabilities and customer orientation. Press Academia Procedia (PAP), 3, 697-706.

Kaplan R., & Norton D. (1999). Balanced scorecard şirket stratejisini eyleme dönüştürmek, İstanbul, Sistem Yayıncılık.

Koçel, T. (2011). İşletme Yöneticiliği, İstanbul, Beta Yayıncılık.

Lawrence, P. R. & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Diffirentation and integration in complex Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly , 12 (1), 1-47.

Lee, I. (2017). Big Data: Dimensions, Evolution, Impacts, and Challenges, Business Horizons, 60(3), 293-303.

Lewis, P. (2016). Is knowledge doubling or halving. Worldnetdaily.com. http://www.wnd.com/2016/05/is-knowledge-doubling-or-halving/ adresinden erişildi.

Lu, Y., Papagiannidis, S., ve Alamanos, E. (2018). Internet of Things: A systematic Review of the Business Literature from the User and Organisational Perspectives, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 285-297.

Marr B. vd. (2004). Intellectual capital – defining key performance indicators for organizational knowledge assets. Journal of Business process management, 10(5), 551-569.

Mehdibeigi, N., Dehghani, M. & Yaghoubi, N. (2016). Customer Knowledge Management and Organization's Effectiveness: Explaining the Mediator Role of Organizational Agility. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 230, 10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.09.012.

Mell, P., ve Grance, T. (2011). The NIST Definition of Cloud Computing (NIST Special Publication, 800-145), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Tech. Rep.

Mihardjo, L., Sasmoko, S. & Rukmana, R. (2019). Customer experıence and organızatıonal agılıty drıven busıness model ınnovatıon to shape sustaınable development. Polish Journal of Management Studies, 20, 293-304. 10.17512/pjms.2019.20.1.26.

Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations, Prentice Hall Yayınevi, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

Mishra, A. A. & Shah, R. (2009). In union lies strength: Collaborative competence in new product development and its performance effects. Journal of Operations Management, 27(4), 324–338.

Moreira, M. (2017). The Agile Enterprise: Building and running agile organizations,Apress, Winchester, Massachusetts, USA.

Munteanu A. I. (2019). A revıew of organızatıonal agılıty concept and characterıstıcs. The Annals of the University of Oradea. Economic Sciences, Tom XXVIII, Issue 1, 335-341.

Nejatian, M., Zarei, M. H. Nejati, M. & Zanjirchi, S. M. (2018). A hybrid approach to achieve organizational agility: An empirical study of a food company. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 25 (1), 201-234.

Nejatian, M. & Zarei, M. H. (2013). Moving Towards Organizational Agility: Are We Improving in the Right Direction. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 14 (4), 241-253.

Özbirecikli M. & Ölçer F. (2002). Strateji odaklı performans ölçüm sistemi: Balanced scorecard-BSC, İ.Ü. İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 31(2), 31-48.

Öztemel, E., ve Gursev, S. (2020), Literature Review of Industry 4.0 and Related Technologies, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 31(1), 127-182.

Parsons, T., Bales, R., & Shils, E. (1953). Working Papers of the Theory of Action. Berlin: Free Press

Pine, J.B. & Gilmore, J.H., (1998).Welcome to the Experience Economy, Harvard Business Review, 76(4), 97-105.

Razmi, M. & Ghasemi, H.M. (2015). Designing a model of organizational agility: A case study of Ardabil Gas Company. International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 4, 100-117.

Rejikumar, G., Arunprasad, P., Persis, J., ve Sreeraj, K. M. (2019). Industry 4.0: Key Findings and Analysis from the Literature Arena, Benchmarking: An International Journal, 26(8), 2514-2542.

Rodríguez, A.L., Ariza-Montes, J.A., Morales-Fernández, E.J.; Eldridge, S. (2016). Assessing the links between organisational cultures and unlearning capability: Evidence from the Spanish automotive components industry.international journal of innovation and learning, 20, 422–436.

Salas, vd., (2009). Does Team Training Improve Team Performance? A Meta-Analysis. Human factors, 50, 903-33.

Samudro, A., Sumarwan, U., Simanjuntak, M., Yusuf, E.Z. (2019). How Commitment, Satisfaction, and Cost Fluctuations Influence Customer Loyalty. Journal of Management and Marketing Review, 4(2), 115-125.

Schmitt, B. H. (2003), Customer Experience Management, John Wiley & Sons, NJ.

Seiti, A. (2014). The agılıty advantage how to ıdentıfy and act on opportunıtıes ın a fast-changıng world. John Wiley & Sons, CA, USA.

Smart C., Vertinsky I. (1977). Designs for crisis decision units. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(4), 640–657

Sole, D., Edmondson, A. C. (2002). Situated knowledge and learning in dispersed teams. British Journal of Management, 13 (2), 17-34.

Stewart, T. A.,(1991). Brainpower , Fortune, 3(127), 44-60.

Strikwerda, H. & Stoelhorst, J. W. (2009). The Emergence and Evolution of the Multidimensional Organization. California Management Review, 51 (4), 11-31.

Sucu, M. (2020). İşletmelerde çeviklik, İksad Yayınevi, Ankara.

Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds: Why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies, and nations. Doubleday & Co.

Tett, G. (2015). The silo effect: The peril of expertise and the promise of breaking down barriers. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Thiétart, R., & Vivas, R. (1981). Strategic intelligence activity: The management of the sales force as a source of strategic information. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Strategic-intelligence-activity%3A-The-management-of-Thi%C3%A9tartVivas/0f2036b5e0ac6656139904eb93f274127a9ef9c0 adresinden 20.01.2020 tarihinde erişildi.

Uğurlu, Y. Ö., Çolakoğlu, E., Öztosun, E . (2019). Stratejik Çevikliğin Firma Performansına Etkisi: Üretim İşletmelerinde Bir Araştırma . İş ve İnsan Dergisi , 6 (1) , 93-106.

Ustasüleyman, T. (2008). Çevikliğin işletme performansına etkisine yönelik yapısal bir model önerisi, Gazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(2), 161-178.

Verweire, Kurt. (2006). Integrated Performance Management: A Guide to Strategy Implementation. Strategic Direction, 22 (5).

Visser, R. (2010), Agility in an institutional context: A search for best practices concerning structure in agile organizations. Master’s Thesis Human Resource Studies School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Tilburg University

Wendler, R. & Stahlke, T. (2014). What constıtutes an agıle organızatıon? Descrıptıve results of an empırıcal ınvestıgatıon, technısche unıversıt¨at dresden.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity, Cambridge University Press.

Wilson, J., Goodman M., Cronin, P.S, Matthew, A. (2007). Group Learning. Academy of Management Review, 32 (4), 1041–1059.

Worthy, J. C. (1959), Big Business and Free men, Newyork.

Yereli, A. N., Gerşil, G. (2005). Entelektüel Sermayeyi Ölçme ve Raporlama Yöntemleri. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Dergisi, 12 (2), 17-29.

Yusuf, Y. Y. ve Adeleye, E. O. (2002). A comparative study of lean and agile manufacturing with a related survey of current practices in the UK, International Journal of Production Research, 40(17), 4545-4562.

Zammuto, R.F.; Gifford, B.; Goodman, E.A. (2000). Managerial ideologies, organization culture and the outcomes of innovation: A competing values perspective. In Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate; Askhanasy, N.H., Wilderom, C.P.M., Peterson, M.F., Eds.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.

Zhang, D. & Sharifi, H. (2000). A Methodology for Achieving Agility in Manufacturing Organizations. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 20, 496-513.

Zitkiene, R. & Deksnys, M.(2018). Organizational Agility Conceptual Model. Montenegrin Journal of Economics, 14 (06), 115-129.

Kaynak Göster

Bibtex @araştırma makalesi { cusosbil832672, journal = {Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi}, issn = {1304-8880}, eissn = {1304-8899}, address = {}, publisher = {Çukurova Üniversitesi}, year = {2022}, volume = {31}, pages = {38 - 50}, doi = {10.35379/cusosbil.832672}, title = {ENDÜSTRİYEL ÇEVİK İŞLETME İÇİN DENGELENMİŞ BAŞARI GÖSTERGELERİ}, key = {cite}, author = {Çelikdin, Alperen Ekrem} }
APA Çelikdin, A. E. (2022). ENDÜSTRİYEL ÇEVİK İŞLETME İÇİN DENGELENMİŞ BAŞARI GÖSTERGELERİ . Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi , 31 (1) , 38-50 . DOI: 10.35379/cusosbil.832672
MLA Çelikdin, A. E. "ENDÜSTRİYEL ÇEVİK İŞLETME İÇİN DENGELENMİŞ BAŞARI GÖSTERGELERİ" . Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 31 (2022 ): 38-50 <
Chicago Çelikdin, A. E. "ENDÜSTRİYEL ÇEVİK İŞLETME İÇİN DENGELENMİŞ BAŞARI GÖSTERGELERİ". Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 31 (2022 ): 38-50
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - ENDÜSTRİYEL ÇEVİK İŞLETME İÇİN DENGELENMİŞ BAŞARI GÖSTERGELERİ AU - Alperen Ekrem Çelikdin Y1 - 2022 PY - 2022 N1 - doi: 10.35379/cusosbil.832672 DO - 10.35379/cusosbil.832672 T2 - Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 38 EP - 50 VL - 31 IS - 1 SN - 1304-8880-1304-8899 M3 - doi: 10.35379/cusosbil.832672 UR - Y2 - 2022 ER -
EndNote %0 Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi ENDÜSTRİYEL ÇEVİK İŞLETME İÇİN DENGELENMİŞ BAŞARI GÖSTERGELERİ %A Alperen Ekrem Çelikdin %T ENDÜSTRİYEL ÇEVİK İŞLETME İÇİN DENGELENMİŞ BAŞARI GÖSTERGELERİ %D 2022 %J Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi %P 1304-8880-1304-8899 %V 31 %N 1 %R doi: 10.35379/cusosbil.832672 %U 10.35379/cusosbil.832672
ISNAD Çelikdin, Alperen Ekrem . "ENDÜSTRİYEL ÇEVİK İŞLETME İÇİN DENGELENMİŞ BAŞARI GÖSTERGELERİ". Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 31 / 1 (Nisan 2022): 38-50 .
AMA Çelikdin A. E. ENDÜSTRİYEL ÇEVİK İŞLETME İÇİN DENGELENMİŞ BAŞARI GÖSTERGELERİ. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. 2022; 31(1): 38-50.
Vancouver Çelikdin A. E. ENDÜSTRİYEL ÇEVİK İŞLETME İÇİN DENGELENMİŞ BAŞARI GÖSTERGELERİ. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. 2022; 31(1): 38-50.
IEEE A. E. Çelikdin , "ENDÜSTRİYEL ÇEVİK İŞLETME İÇİN DENGELENMİŞ BAŞARI GÖSTERGELERİ", Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, c. 31, sayı. 1, ss. 38-50, Nis. 2022, doi:10.35379/cusosbil.832672
Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi
  • ISSN: 1304-8880
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 2 Sayı
  • Yayıncı: Çukurova Üniversitesi

97b50.4b