Scale Adaptation of Innovation-Outsourcing in Companies

Abstract

In line with the strategic management approach which was developed in the light of changes in production and markets, there is an emphasis in the literature of this field that companies need to be well managed in order to survive, to benefit from strategic management, and to have a sustainable competitive advantage. This study aimed to adapt and apply a scale of innovation and outsourcing. While adapting the scale, in addition to the data from the qualitative research, three different scales were used in the selection. We arranged a questionnaire and created new questions. The questionnaire consists of eight chapters: the characteristics of companies, outsourcing, supplier relations, suppliers’ satisfaction level, innovation process, innovations in the last five years, and outsourcing-innovation. We collected the data from companies in Turkey, which are on the Fortune 500 list. We analyzed the data with SPSS 23 and AMOS 20. As a result of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, the outsourcing scale was composed of 3 dimensions and 20 items. While the innovation scale consisted of 12 items in one dimension. The reliability coefficient of the outsourcing scale is 0.912, and the innovation scale is 0.911. The low number of items facilitates its applicability.

Keywords

• Outsourcing
• Innovation
• Scale Adaptation
• Validity
• Reliability

References

1. Arıkan, C. L. (2008). Evaluating the Dynamics of Innovation in Turkey: The Impact of Innovation on Busi- ness Performance (Doctoral dissertation, Doktora Tezi, Boğaziçi Üniversitesi).
2. Bardakçı, H. (2018). Öz yetenek oluşturma stratejisi olarak inovasyonun önemi: Büyük ölçekli işletmeler üzerinde bir araştırma.
3. Bengtsson, L., Von Haartman, R., & Dabhilkar, M. (2009). Low‐cost versus innovation: contrasting outso- urcing and integration strategies in manufacturing. Creativity and Innovation Management, 18(1), 35-47.
4. Bui, Q., Leo, E., & Adelakun, O. (2019). Achieving Strategic Innovation through Information Technology Outsourcing: A Configurational Approach.
5. Calantone, R. J., Cavusgil, S. T., & Zhao, Y. (2002). Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance. Industrial marketing management, 31(6), 515-524.
6. Chakravarthy, B. S. (1982). Adaptation: A promising metaphor for strategic management. Academy of ma- nagement review, 7(1), 35-44.
7. Çetinkaya, S. (2009). Bilateral Governance in Outsourced Services: Interorganizational Dynamics and Con- sequences (Doctoral dissertation, Doktora Tezi, Boğaziçi Üniversitesi).
8. Gül, H. (2005). Dış kaynak Kullanma Nedenleri ve Taşıdığı Riskler: İmalat Sanayiinde Bir Uygulama, Ban- dırma İİBF Yönetim ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4, 157-184.

9. Günay, Ö. (2007). Kobi’lerde yenilik türlerinin analizi ve yenilik engellerinin belirlenmesine yönelik bir araştırma.
10. Heikkilä, J., & Cordon, C. (2002). Outsourcing: a core or non‐core strategic management decision? Strategic change, 11(4), 183-193.
11. İraz, R., Çakıcı, A. B., & Tekin, İ. Ç. (2014). Yenilik yönetimi açısından KOBİ’lerde dış kaynak kullanımının araştırılması: Konya ili örneği. Global Journal of Economics and Business Studies, 3(6), 51-68.
12. Jajja, M. S. S., Kannan, V. R., Brah, S. A., & Hassan, S. Z. (2017). Linkages between firm innovation strategy, suppliers, product innovation, and business performance: insights from resource dependence theory. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 37(8), 1054-1075.
13. Kim, M., & Chai, S. (2017). The impact of supplier innovativeness, information sharing and strategic sour- cing on improving supply chain agility: Global supply chain perspective. International Journal of Pro- duction Economics, 187, 42-52.
14. Murat, G., & Kulualp, H. G. (2010). Yöneticilerin yeniden yapılanma sürecinde inovasyona bakış açısı: Kardemir Örneği. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 28, 49-64.
15. Orhan, A., Genç Yılmaz, S., Karadeniz, E. (2018). Dünya Doğal Kaynak Dağılımının Gelir Dağılımı Üzerine Etkisi: Kömür, Petrol Ve Doğal Gaz Üzerinden Bir Değerlendirme, ENSCON’18 – International Cong- ress of Energy, Economy and Security.
16. Özçifçi, V., & Sarıçay, H. (2014). İşletmelerde Yenilikçilik Faaliyetlerinin İncelenmesi. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 18(1), 387-404.
17. Prajogo, D. I., & Sohal, A. S. (2006). The integration of TQM and technology/R&D management in deter- mining quality and innovation performance. Omega, 34(3), 296-312.
18. Ragin, C. C. (2000). Fuzzy-set social science. University of Chicago Press.
19. Ragin, C. C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. University of Chicago Press. Rothwell, R. (1995). Industrial innovation: success, strategy, trends. Chapters.
20. Schermelleh-Engel, K. M. H. Ve Müller, H.(2003). Models: Tests of significance and descriptive. Psycholo- gical Research Online, 8(2), 23-74.
21. Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. (2012). Set-theoretic methods for the social sciences: A guide to qualita- tive comparative analysis. Cambridge University Press.
22. Teece, D. J. (1984). Economic analysis and strategic management. California Management Review (pre- 1986), 26(000003), 87.
23. Von Haartman, R., & Bengtsson, L. (2015). The impact of global purchasing and supplier integration on product innovation. International Journal of Operations & Production Management.
24. Yıldız, B., & Çiğdem, Ş. (2019) Firma İnovasyon Stratejisinin İnovasyon Performansı Üzerindeki Etkisinde Tedarikçi İnovatifliğinin Aracı Rolü. MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 8(2), 1761-1777.
25. Zafar, A. (2019). The Outsourcing Innovation Paradox: A Company’s Growth Option or a Risk to R&D Capabilities.