Çalışanların Teknoloji Kullanım Adaptasyonunun Firmaların Lojistik Servis Performansına Etkisi

Abstract

Şirketlerin rekabet gücünü belirleyen faktörlerden biri de bilgi teknolojisi yetenekleridir. Ancak, bu yetenek çalışanların bunları kullanma niyetiyle ilişkilidir. Liman otomasyon sistemlerini teknolojik yatırım olarak incelediğimizde konteyner terminallerinde yaygın olarak kullanılmaktadır. Bu sebepten bu teknolojilerin kullanımında davranışsal niyet lojistik servis performansını etkileyebilecek önemli faktörlerden biridir. Bu çalışma, çalışanların teknoloji kullanımındaki davranışsal niyetinin limanların lojistik servis performansı üzerindeki etkisini ortaya çıkartmayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu bağlamda, liman otomasyon sistemlerini kullanan çalışanların davranışsal niyeti, Teknolojik Adaptasyon Modeli ile incelenmiştir

Keywords

• Rekabet Gücü, Lojistik Servis Performansı, Liman Otomasyon Sistemleri, Teknolojik Adaptasyon Modeli

Employees Technology Usage Adaptation Impact on Companies’ Logistics Service Performance

Abstract

The information technology IT capability of companies is one of the determinants of their competitive power. However, IT outputs depend on employees intentions to use them. As a technological investment Port automation systems are widely used in container terminals. Therefore behavioral intention in the usage of various IT applications is one of the important factors that may affect logistics service performance. This study aims to explore the employees' technology usage adaptation impact on the logistics service performance of ports. In this context, the behavioral intentions of employees who use port automation systems are investigated using the Technological Acceptance Model.

Keywords

• Competitive Power, Logistics Service Performance, Port Automation Systems, Technology Acceptance Model

References

1. Abdullah, F., and Ward, R. (2016). Developing a General Extended Technology Acceptance Model for E-Learning (GETAMEL) by analysing commonly used external factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 238-256.
2. Acar, A.Z., and Zehir, C. (2009). Development and validation of a multidimensional business capabilities measurement instrument. Journal of Transnational Management, 14(3), 215-240.
3. Acar, A.Z., and Zehir, C. (2010). The harmonize effects of generic strategies and business capabilities on business performance. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 11(4), 689-711.
4. Ajzen, I., and Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour.
5. Bharadwaj, A. S. (2000). A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm performance: an empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 169-196.
6. Bhatt, G. D., and Grover, V. (2005). Types of information technology capabilities and their role in competitive advantage: An empirical study. Journal of management information systems, 22(2), 253-277.
7. Cullinane, K., and Song, D. W. (2006). Estimating the relative efficiency of European container ports: a stochastic frontier analysis. Research in Transportation Economics, 16, 85-115.
8. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 319-340.

9. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., and Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: Science, 35(8), 982-1003. of two theoretical models. Management
10. DeSarbo, W. S., Anthony Di Benedetto, C., and Sinha, I. (2005). Revisiting the Miles and Snow strategic framework: uncovering interrelationships between strategic types, capabilities, environmental uncertainty, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26(1), 47-74.
11. Fathema, N., Shannon, D., and Ross, M. (2015). Expanding the technology acceptance model (tam) to examine faculty use of learning management systems (LMSS) in higher education institutions. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(2).
12. González-Benito, J. (2007). Information technology investment and operational performance in purchasing: The mediating role of supply chain management practices and strategic integration of purchasing. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 107(2), 201-228.
13. Hamid, A. A., Razak, F. Z. A., Bakar, A. A., and Abdullah, W. S. W. (2016). The effects of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use on continuance intention to use e-government. Procedia Economics and Finance, 35, 644-649.
14. Joo, J., and Sang, Y. (2013). Exploring Koreans’ smartphone usage: An integrated model of the technology acceptance model and uses and gratifications theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2512-2518.
15. Karagoz, I. B., and Akgun, A. E. (2015). The roles of it capability and organizational culture on logistics capability and firm performance. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 7(2), 23-45.
16. Kmieciak, R., Michna, A., and Meczynska, A. (2012). Innovativeness, empowerment and IT capability: evidence from SMEs. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 112(5), 707-728.
17. Lai, F., Li, D., Wang, Q., and Zhao, X. (2008). The information technology capability of third-party logistics providers: a resource-based view and empirical evidence from China. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 44(3), 22-38.
18. Lai, F., Li, D., Wang, Q., and Zhao, X. (2008). The information technology capability of third-party logistics providers: a resource-based view and empirical evidence from China. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 44(3), 22-38.
19. Lee, H. S., Chou, M. T., and Kuo, S. G. (2005). Evaluating port efficiency in Asia Pacific region with recursive data envelopment analysis. Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 6, 544-559.
20. Lu, C. S., and Yang, C. C. (2006). Comparison of investment preferences for international logistics zones in Kaohsiung, Hong Kong, and Shanghai ports from a Taiwanese manufacturer's perspective. Transportation Journal, 30-51.
21. Lynch, D. F., Keller, S. B., and Ozment, J. (2000). The effects of logistics capabilities and strategy on firm performance. Journal of Business Logistics, 21(2), 47-68.
22. Mangan, J., Lalwani, C., and Fynes, B. (2008). Port-centric logistics. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 19(1), 29-41.
23. Mata, F. J., Fuerst, W. L., and Barney, J. B. (1995). Information technology and sustained competitive advantage: A resource-based analysis. MIS Quarterly, 487-505. Morash, E. A. (2001). performance. Transportation Journal, 37-54. Supply chain strategies, capabilities, and
24. Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
25. Porter, M. E. (1985). Technology and competitive advantage. Journal of Business Strategy, 5(3), 60-78.
26. Richey, R. G., Daugherty, P. J., and Roath, A. S. (2007). Firm technological readiness and complementarity: capabilities impacting logistics service competency and performance. Journal of Business Logistics, 28(1), 195-228.
27. Santhanam, R., and Hartono, E. (2003). Issues in linking information technology capability to firm performance. MIS Quarterly, 125-153.
28. Sriram, V., Stump, R. L., and Banerjee, S. (1997). Information technology investments in purchasing: an empirical study of dimensions and antecedents. Information and Management, 33(2), 59-72.
29. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., and Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 509-533.
30. Tippins, M. J., and Sohi, R. S. (2003). IT competency and firm performance: is organizational learning a missing link?. Strategic Management Journal, 24(8), 745-761.
31. Turulja, L., and Bajgorić, N. (2016). Innovation and Information Technology Capability as Antecedents of Firms’ Success. Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems: INDECS, 14(2), 148-156.
32. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development [UNCTAD]. (2016). Review of Maritime Transport – 2016. United Nations Publication.
33. Venkatesh, V. (1999). Creation of favorable user perceptions: exploring the role of intrinsic motivation. MIS Quarterly, 239-260.
34. Venkatesh, V., and Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204.
35. Wallace, L. G., and Sheetz, S. D. (2014). The adoption of software measures: A technology Management, 51(2), 249-259. model (TAM) perspective. Information andManagement, 51(2), 249-259.