Strategic Antecedents and Consequents for the Performance of <i>E-Business</i> Companies

Souza, Elnivan Moreira de; Batista, Paulo César de Sousa

doi:10.15728/bbr.2017.14.1.4

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

BBR. Brazilian Business Review

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Articles • BBR, Braz. Bus. Rev. 14 (1) • Jan-Feb 2017 • https://doi.org/10.15728/bbr.2017.14.1.4 copy

Strategic Antecedents and Consequents for the Performance of E-Business Companies

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

This article aims to examine the influence of the strategic background and of the business model elements on its value proposition, and to investigate the relationship between the value proposition and the performance of e-business. The research is supported theoretically by the Technological, Organizational and Environmental framework (TOE), derived from the Diffusion of Innovation Theory (DIT), for the Strategic Background (IFINEDO, 2011IFINEDO, P. An empirical analysis of factors influencing internet/e-business technologies adoption by SMEs in Canada. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, v. 10, n. 4, p. 731-766, 2011.), by the Business Model theory (OSTERWALDER; PIGNEUR; 2010OSTERWALDER, A.; PIGNEUR, Y. Business model generation. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2010.; SOUZA; BATISTA, 2014SOUZA, E. M.; BATISTA, P.C.S. Escala para mensuração de modelo de negócios. In: ENCONTRO DA ASSOCIAÇÃO NACIONAL DOS PROGRAMAS DE PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO EM ADMINISTRAÇÃO (ENANPAD), 38., 2014, Rio de Janeiro (RJ). Anais... Rio de Janeiro: ANPAD, 2014.) and by the business performance literature (RAMANUJAN; VENKATRAMAN, 1987RAMANUJAM, V.; VENKATRAMAN, N. Planning system characteristics and planning effectiveness. Strategic Management Journal, v. 8, p. 453-68, 1987.). We tested the proposed model with a sample of 252 observations, using the structural equation modeling. The main results indicate a partial influence of the strategic background in the value proposition through the constructs management positioning, organizational readiness, relative advantage and pressure from stakeholders. Relating to the business model, the constructs of market segmentation, customer relationships, capabilities, partnerships and revenue model influence the value proposition, which in turn affects positively the performance of e-business companies.

Keywords:
Strategic antecedents; Business models; Performance; E-business

		MANAGEMENT POSITIONING
ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT	CO_PG1	Management is interested in the use of Internet/e-business technologies on operations
	CO_PG2	Management supports the implementation of Interne/e-business technologies on operations
	CO_PG3	Management has a clear vision on the use of Internet/e-business technologies in the company
	CO_PG4	Management internally discloses the need for the use of internet/e-business technologies in the company
		ORGANIZATIONAL READINESS
	CO_PRO1	The company knows how information technology can be used to support its operations
	CO_PRO2	The company has a good understanding of how Internet/e-business technologies can be used in its businesses
	CO_PRO3	The company has the technical and managerial skills needed to implement Internet/ebusiness technologies
	CO_PRO4	The company's values and standards prevents adopting Internet/e-business technologies in their operations
TECHNOLOGICAL CONTEXT		RELATIVE ADVANTAGE
	CT_VR1	Internet/e-business technologies enable the company to manage its operations efficiently
	CT_VR2	Internet/e-business technologies improve the quality of the business operations
	CT_VR3	Internet/e-business technologies improve the efficiency of business operations
	CT_VR4	Internet/e-business technologies allow the company to carry out operations more rapidly
		COMPATIBILITY
	CT_CB1	The use of Internet/e-business technologies is compatible with the company's type of business
	CT_CB2	The use of Internet/e-business technologies fits the way the company operates
	CT_CB3	The use of Internet/e-business technologies fits the work style of the company
		COMPLEXITY
	CT_CX1	The use of Internet/e-business technologies requires a lot of mental effort
	CT_CX2	The use of Internet/e-business technologies ends up being frustrating for the company
	CT_CX3	The use of Internet/e-business technologies is too complex for the company's operations
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT		PRESSURE FROM COMPETITORS
	CA_PCP1	The company is aware that competitors are ready to do business over the Internet
	CA_PCP2	The company receives pressure from competitors to adopt Internet/e-business technologies
	CA_PCP3	Competitors already use Internet/e-business technologies
		PRESSURE FROM STAKEHOLDERS
	CA_PCL1	The company is aware that customers are ready to do business on the internet
	CA_PCL2	The company receives pressure from customers to adopt Internet/e-business technologies
	CA_PCL3	Customers demand using Internet/e-business technologies to do business with the company
		PRESSURE FROM SUPPLIERS
	CA_PFO1	The company is aware that the suppliers are ready to do business on the internet
	CA_PFO2	The company receives pressure from suppliers to adopt Internet/e-business technologies
	CA_PFO3	Suppliers demand using Internet/e-business technologies to do business with the company
		GOVERNMENT SUPPORT
	CA_SG1	The government provides incentives for the company to adopt Internet/e-business technologies
	CA_SG2	The company receives pressure from the government to adopt Internet/e-business technologies
	CA_SG3	The government plays an important role for the company to adopt Internet/e-business technologies

		VALUE PROPOSITION
PROD/SERV.	PS_PV1	The product/service that the company offers perfectly meets the needs of customers
	PS_PV2	Products/services offered by the company are known for their quality
	PS_PV3	The price of the product/service of the company has significant impact on the value proposition
	PS_PV4	The company offers a product/service considered as innovative
	PS_PV5	The life cycle of the product / service offered by the company is relatively short (less than 1 year)
CUSTOMER INTERFACE		MARKET SEGMENTATION
	IC_SM1	In the company there is a clear definition of the market segment that it serves
	IC_SM2	The market segment that the company serves is directly linked to the product/service that it offers
	IC_SM3	The company is already recognized in the market because of the product/service that is offers
		DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS
	IC_CD1	The company uses the Internet to deliver products/services
	IC_CD2	The company uses more than one mechanism to deliver products/services
	IC_CD3	The company's operations are integrated with the logistics (delivery of products)
	IC_CD4	The type of client that the company serves is considered when choosing distribution channels
		CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP
	IC_RC1	The company adopts a personalized relationship with customers
	IC_RC2	Customers put their trust in the company/brand
	IC_RC3	The relationship with customers is based on high switching costs (e.g. software replacement)
	IC_RC4	The company can retain and maintain a good relationship with customers
INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT		CAPABILITIES
	GI_CP1	The company can make good use of the resources it has to offer differentiated products/services
	GI_CP2	The company knows how to use machines, buildings and equipment to produce quality products/services
	GI_CP3	The company knows how to use the knowledge and team skills to generate innovative products/services
		VALUE CONFIGURATION
	GI_CV1	The company uses in an integrated manner all the operational activities
	GI_CV2	The company seeks to add value by incorporating new products/services
	GI_CV3	Products/services offered by the company are difficult to copy
		PARTNERSHIPS
	GI_PA1	The company establishes partnerships to purchase cheaper products/services
	GI_PA2	The company forms partnerships to reduce environmental risks and uncertainties
	GI_PA3	The company forms partnerships to acquire new resources such as machines and equipment
	GI_PA4	The company forms partnerships to acquire new capabilities such as patents, trademarks and know-how
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT		REVENUE MODEL
	GF_MR1	The company earns revenue through the sale of products/services
	GF_MR2	The company earns revenues by receiving loan interest
	GF_MR3	The company earns revenue from advertising products/services from partner companies
	GF_MR4	The company earns revenue by receiving commissions
		COST STRUCTURE
	GF_EC1	The company knows the participation of each item of its cost structure
	GF_EC2	The company regularly monitors the cost of its activities
	GF_EC3	The company's costs are compatible with the costs of major competitors
	GF_EC4	The company's cost structure is compatible with the business model that it adopts

	PERFORMANCE
DES 1	Sales Volume Growth
DES 2	Revenue Growth
DES 3	Market share
DES 4	Profit Margin
DES 5	Net Profit

Profile	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Activity Sector
Trade	68	27.0
Industry	43	17.1
Online Service	27	10.7
Financial Service	20	7.9
Traditional Service	52	20.6
Advertising	5	2.0
Other	34	13.5
Missing	3	1.2
Time of the Company in the Market
0 to 5 years	80	31.7
6 to 10 years	40	15.9
10 to 20 years	41	16.3
> 20 years	84	33.3
Missing	7	2.8
Annual revenue (R$)
Up to 60.000,00	40	15.9
60.000,01- 360.000,00	33	13.1
360.000,01-3.600.000,00	54	21.4
3.600.000,01 a 12.000.000,00	37	14.7
> 12.000.000,00	74	29.4
Missing	14	5.6
Number of Employees
0 to 19	89	35.3
20 to 99	52	20.6
100 to 499	31	12.3
> 500	73	29.0
Missing	7	2.8

Dimension	KMO	Variance Explained	Construct	Scale Items	Cronbach's Alpha
Organizational Context	0.827	68.60%	Management Positioning	4	0.839
Organizational Context	0.827	68.60%	Organizational Readiness	3	0.743
Technological Context	0.839	72.60%	Relative Advantage	5	0.874
			Compatibility	3	0.895
			Complexity	3	0.763
Environmental Context	0.807	67.66%	Pressure from Competitors	3	0.771
			Pressure from Stakeholders	5	0.895
			Government Support	3	0.833
Product/Service	0.644	54.20%	Value Proposition	4	0.690
Customer Interface	0.741	60.65%	Market Segmentation	3	0.640
			Distribution Channels	4	0.736
			Relationship with Customer	3	0.717
Infrastructure Management	0.850	62.58%	Capabilities	5	0.831
Infrastructure Management	0.850	62.58%	Partnerships	4	0.821
Financial Management	0.713	64.73%	Revenue Model	3	0.674
Financial Management	0.713	64.73%	Cost Structure	4	0.830
Performance	0.819	72.36%	Performance	5	0.904

Chi-square (□²)	Degrees of freedom (df)	□²/df	p	IFI	TLI	CFI	RMSEA
2,218.921	1.554	1.428	0.000	0.915	0.900	0.912	0.041

Independent Variable		Dependent Variable	Estimated	S.E.	C.R.	P	Hypothesis	Status
CO_PG	➜	PS_PV	0.175	0.085	2.074	0.038^ p≤0.05;	H1a	A
CO_PRO	➜	PS_PV	0.278	0.092	3.010	0.003^* ***** p≤0.01;	H1b	A
CT_VR	➜	PS_PV	0.167	0.101	1.647	0.100^* * p≤0.10;	H1c	A
CT_CB	➜	PS_PV	0.051	0.081	0.627	0.531	H1d	R
CT_CX	➜	PS_PV	-0.095	0.088	-1.077	0.281	H1e	R
CA_PSK	➜	PS_PV	0.132	0.061	2.161	0.031^ p≤0.05;	Hf-g	A
CA_PCP	➜	PS_PV	-0.100	0.096	-1.050	0.294	H1h	R
CA_SG	➜	PS_PV	-0.082	0.062	-1.331	0.183	H1i	R

Independent Variable		Dependent Variable	Estimated	S.E.	C.R.	P	Hypothesis	Status
IC SM	➜	PS PV	0.178	0.090	1.985	0.047^ p≤0.05;	H2a	A
IC CD	➜	PS_PV	-0.054	0.047	-1.136	0.256	H2b	R
IC RC	➜	PS_PV	0.588	0.116	5.061	0.001^* ***** p≤0.01;	H2c	A
GI CP	➜	PS_PV	0.242	0.098	2.481	0.013^ p≤0.05;	H3a	A
GI PA	➜	PS_PV	0.121	0.062	1.957	0.050^ p≤0.05;	H3c	A
GF MR	➜	PS_PV	-0.133	0.065	-2.048	0.041^ p≤0.05;	H4a	A
GF_EC	➜	PS_PV	0.058	0.085	0.684	0.494	H4b	R

Independent Variable		Dependent Variable	Estimated	S.E.	C.R. P	Hypothesis	Status
PS_PV	➜	DES	0.300	0.083	3.603 0.001^* ***** p≤0.01;	H5	A

Fucape Business School Av. Fernando Ferrari, 1358, Boa Vista, 29075-505, Vitória, Espírito Santo, Brasil, (27) 4009-4423 - Vitória - ES - Brazil
E-mail: bbronline@bbronline.com.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] *Author for correspondence:†. Master in Administration and PhD Student in Administration by the University of Fortaleza - UNIFOR. Link: Professor of the Administration Course at Christus University Center. Address: Avenue Dom Luís, 911 - Aldeota - Fortaleza - CE - Brazil. Cep: 60160-230. E-mail: elnivan@hotmail.com