Örgütsel Çeviklik Ölçeğinin Türkçeye Uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Year 2018, , 185 - 206, 20.10.2018

Bülent Akkaya , Akif Tabak

https://doi.org/10.18394/iid.439184

Cited By: 22

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı Sharifi ve Zhang (1999)
tarafından geliştirilen Örgütsel Çeviklik Ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanmasıdır.
Çeviklik literatürde üretim sürecinde örgütsel çeviklik ise teknoloji ve
çevreye uyum sağlama sürecinde rol oynayan önemli bir faktör olarak
tanımlanmaktadır. Bu nedenle işletmenin iç ve dış değişimlere uyum sağlaması bu
sayede varlığını sürdürmesi için farklı değişkenlere ihtiyaç duymaktadır.  Bu değişkenlerle ilişkili geniş araştırma
yelpazesini tanımlatacak aracı değişkenler için gelecekteki araştırmalarda
kullanılmak üzere Örgütsel Çeviklik Ölçeğinin Türkçeye adaptasyonu önemli
olarak değerlendirilmektedir. Araştırma Manisa ve İzmir ilinde faaliyet
gösteren KOBİ ve Teknopark firmalarında iş gören ve farklı kademelerdeki
yöneticiler arasında üç farklı örneklem ile yürütülmüştür. Ölçek uyarlama
süreci Brislin geri çeviri prosedürü takip edildi. Araştırma bir ölçek uyarlama
çalışması olduğu için öncelikle dil geçerliği için biri daha önce ölçek
geliştirme konusunda deneyimli olan İngilizceye hâkim iki akademisyen
tarafından Türkçeye uyarlaması yapılmıştır ve bu işlemin ardından ilk tercümeyi
yapanlardan farklı İngilizceye hâkim iki akademisyen tarafından tekrar
İngilizce ve Türkçe çevirisi yapılmıştır. Dil geçerliği sağlandıktan sonra
ölçeğin yapı geçerliği ve güvenirlik analizi incelenmiştir. Ölçeğin yapı
geçerliğini belirlemek için öncelikle Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA)
yapılmış, ölçek orijinaldeki gibi 4 faktörlü çıkmış fakat uyum değerleri kabul
edilen değer aralığında çıkmadığı için Keşfedici Faktör Analiz(KFA) yapılmış ve
KMO 0,895 ve Barlett testi χ2 değeri ise 1668,129(p<001) olarak bulunmuştur.
Ayrıca toplam varyansın % 64,53’ünü açıklayan dört faktörlü bir yapı elde
edilmiştir. KFA’dan elde edilen madde-faktör yapısının doğrulayıcı faktör
analizi (DFA) ile model uyumu tekrar test edilmiştir. Buna göre Örgütsel
Çeviklik Ölçeği’nin dört faktörlü yapısının doğrulandığı görülmüştür
(X2=211,866, sd=110, p=.000, X2/sd=1.92). Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA) uyum
indekslerine bakıldığında RMSEA= 0,05, NFI=0,96, GFI= 0,92 ve AGFI= 0,90 olarak
bulunmuştur. Ölçeğin güvenirliğini belirlemek için yapılan toplam iç tutarlılık
katsayısının α=.92, yetkinlik boyutunun α=.84, esneklik boyutunun α=.81, cevap
verme boyutunun α=.74 ve hız boyutunun ise α=.85 olduğu ve ölçeğin iç
tutarlılığa sahip olduğu bulunmuştur. Elde edilen bulgular Örgütsel Çeviklik
Ölçeğinin Türkçe Formunun kabul edilebilir değerlerde güvenilir ve geçerli bir
ölçme aracı olduğu söylenebilir.

Keywords

Örgütsel Çeviklik, Güvenirlik, Geçerlilik, Faktör Analizi, Ölçek Uyarlama

Adaptation to Turkish of Organizational Agility Questionnaire: Reliability and Validity Study

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to adapt
Organizational Agility Questionnaire developed by Sharifi and Zhang (1999) to
the Turkish. In the literature, agility is defined as an important factor
playing a role in the production process while organizational agility is
defined as an important factor playing a role in the process of adaptation to
technology and the environment. Enterprises should adapt to both internal and
external changes and by this way, they may maintain their presence. For this
reason, to be used in different variants and a wide range of related research,
the adaptation of the Organizational Agility Questionnaire to Turkish is
important. The research was conducted with three different samples including
employees and managers who work in SMEs and Technopark firms operating in
Manisa and İzmir. Since the study is a questionnaire adaptation, first of all,
for the validity of language, the adaptation of the questionnaire was done by
two academicians one of whom was experienced in the adaptation of questionnaire
before and after that translation of questionnaire Turkish and English was done
by two different academicians mentioned above. After validating the language,
the validity and reliability analysis of the questionnaire were examined.
Firstly, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was done in order to determine the
construct of the questionnaire; the results showed that the questionnaire has 4
factors the same as the original. Since goodness-of-fit index of the CFA was
not in the acceptable range, the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was
performed. The results of the EFA analysis showed that KMO value was .895,
Bartlett test χ2 value was 1668,129 (p <.001).  In addition, four-factor structure was
obtained that describes the 64,53% of the total variance. Item-factor structure
obtained from the EFA analysishas been tested for compliance with a model by
the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Based on this, four-factor structure of
the Organizational Agility questionnaire has been validated (X2=211,866,
df=110, p=.000, X2/df=1.92). Goodness-of-fit indexices of the results of the
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) showed that goodness-of-fit values are in
the acceptable range ( RMSEA=.005, NFI=.96, GFI=.92, AGFI=.90). All constructs
obtained Cronbach Alpha(α) greater than 0.7. The coefficient of the total
internal consistency was found α=.92, competency dimension was α=.84,
flexibility dimension was α=.81, responsiveness dimension was α=.74 and
quickness dimension was α=.85 in the questionnaire which determined there
liability of the questionnaire and showed that questionnaire had internal
consistency. The results of the EFA analysis and CFA analysis applied for
adaptation of Organizational Agility questionnaire to the Turkish, it can be
said that the questionnaire is a reliable and valid measurement tool.

Keywords

Organizational Agility, Reliability, Validity, Factor Analysis, Scale Adaptation

References

• Almahamid, S., Awwad, A. ve McAdams, A. C. (2010). Effects of Organizational Agility and Knowledge Sharing on Competitive Advantage: An Empirical Study in Jordan. International Journal of Management, 27(3), 387-404
• Bahrami, M. A., Kiani, M. M., Montazeralfaraj, R., Zadeh, H. F. ve Zadeh, M. M. (2016). The mediating role of organizational learning in the relationship of organizational intelligence and organizational agility. Osong public health and research perspectives, 7(3), 190-196.
• Banihashemi, S. A. ve Sarani, A. (2012). Assessment of organizational agility in cement industry. African Journal of Business Management, 6(27), 8055-8064
• Barreto, I. (2010), Dynamic capabilities: A review of past research and an agenda for the future. Journal of Management, 36(1): 256-280.
• Becker, M. C.ve Knudsen, T. (2005). The role of routines in reducing pervasive uncertainty. Journal of Business Research, 58(6), ss. 746-757.
• Bozkurt, V. ve Baştürk, Ş. (2009). Kobi Girişimcilerinde Risk Ve Belirsizlik Algıları: Bursa Örneği. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 64(02), ss.43-74.
• Brislin, R., Lonner W. ve Thorndike, R. (1973). Cross-Cultural Research Methods, New York: John Wiley.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2002). Faktör analizi: Temel kavramlar ve ölçek geliştirmede kullanımı. Kuram ve uygulamada eğitim yönetimi, 32(32), ss.470-483.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2007). Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı, Ankara, Pegem A Yayıncılık.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş.(2009). Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı, Onuncu Baskı, Pegem Akademi, Ankara.
• Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS, Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. New York, Routlege Taylor ve Francis Group.
• Christopher, M. (2000). The Agile Supply Chain, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 29, No.1, ss. 37-44.
• Crocitto, M.ve Youssef, M. (2003). The Human Side of Organizational Agility. Industrial Management ve Data Systems, 103(6), ss.388-397
• Çolakoğlu, Ö. M. ve Büyükekşi, C. (2014). Açımlayıcı Faktör Analiz Sürecini Etkileyen Unsurların Değerlendirilmesi. Karaelmas Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 2(1), ss. 58-64
• Downes, L.,ve Nunes, P. (2014). Big bang disruption: Strategy in the age of devastating innovation. New York, NY: Portfolio/Penguin
• Dubey, R.ve Gunasekaran, A. (2014). Agile manufacturing: framework and its empirical validation. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. 76(9), ss.2147- 2157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00170-014-6455-6
• Ebrahimpour, H., Salarifar, M. ve Asiaei, A. (2012). The Relationship between agility capabilities and organizational performance: a case study among home appliance factories in Iran. European Journal of Business and Management, 4(17), ss.186-95.
• Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal, 32(3): ss. 543-576.
• Eisenhardt, K. M.ve Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10/11), ss.1105-1121
• Farokhi, S. ve Rajaeepour, S. (2016) The relationship between management factors and Sharifi-Zhang's agility components in Isfahan Bank Saderat, International Business Management 10(19), ss.4530-4539
• Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics using SPSS, Third Edition, London, Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications.
• Ganguly, A., Nilchiani, R. ve Farr, J. V. (2009). Evaluating agility in corporate enterprises. International Journal of Production Economics, 118(2), ss. 410-423. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2008.12.009)
• Goldman, S.L., Nagel, R.N. ve Preiss, K. (1995). Agile Competitors and Virtual Organizations: Strategies for enriching the customer, Van no strand rein hold, New York.
• Gunasekaran, A.ve Yusuf, Y.Y. (2002), Agile Manufacturing: A Taxonomy of Strategic and Technological Imperatives, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 40, No. 6, ss.1357-1385.
• Hinkin, T. R(1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21, (5), ss. 967-988.
• Hormozi M. Amir (2001). Agile Manufacturing: The Next Logical Step, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol.8 No.2, ss. 132-143.
• Hoyt, J., Huq, F. ve Kreiser, P. (2007). Measuring organizational responsiveness: the development of a validated survey instrument. Management Decision, 45(10), ss. 1573-1594.
• Huang, C. C. (1999). An agile approach to logical network analysis in decision support systems. Decision Support Systems, 25(1), ss. 53-70. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9236(98)00091-8)
• Jain, V., Benyoucef, L. ve Deshmukh, S.G. (2008). What’s the Buzz about Moving from “Lean” to “Agile” Integrated Supply Chains? A Fuzzy Intelligent Agent-Based Approach”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 46, No. 23, ss. 6649-6677.
• Kantse, Outi, Jouko Miettunen ve Helvi Kyngas (2007). “Psychometric Properties of Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Among Nurses”. Jan Research Methodology 57(2), ss.201-212.
• Karagöz, Y. ve Kösterelioğlu, İ. (2008). İletişim Becerileri Değerlendirme Ölçeğinin Faktör Analizi Metodu ile Geliştirilmesi, Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 21, ss. 81-98.
• Kasap, G. C. ve Peker, D. (2009). Çevik Üretim: Otomotiv Ana Sanayinde Faaliyet Gösteren Bir İşletmenin Çevikliğinin Ortaya Konmasına Yönelik Bir Araştırma 8 (27), ss. 57-78.
• Kassim, N. M.ve Zain, M. (2004). Assessing the measurement of organizational agility. Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 4(1/2), ss. 174-177.
• Kettunen, P. (2009). Adopting key lessons from agile manufacturing to agile software product development—A comparative study. Technovation, 29(6), ss.408-422
• Koçyiğit, Y. (2018) Firmaların Örgütsel Esnekliği, Kullandıkları Rekabet Stratejileri ve Algılanan Rekabet Üstünlüğü Arasındaki Etkileşim: Türkiye’nin En Büyük 500 Sanayi İşletmesinde Bir Uygulama (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi), İzmir Katip Çelebi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İzmir.
• Latham, L. J. (2014). Organizational agility: Exploring impact of adoption on team performance from the human resource perspective(Doktora Tezi).
• Lin, C.T., Chiu, H. ve Chu, P.Y. (2006), Agility Index in the Supply Chain, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 100, No. 2, ss. 285-299.
• Lopes, K. J. (2009). Organizational agility: Exploring how the U.S. coast guard chooses and implements effective courses of action(Doktora Tezi). (http://www.proquest.com . No:304831927)
• MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S. ve Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological methods, 4(1), ss.84-99
• Maskell, B. (2001). The age of agile manufacturing, supply chain management. An International Journal, Vol. 6, No.1, ss. 5-11.
• Mason, A. J. (2010). Inside the black box: Investigating agility as a dynamic capability for sustaining a competitive advantage within consulting firms(Doktora Tezi). (http://www.proquest.com . No:807420305)
• Mohammadi, M., Nikpour, A. ve Chamanifard, R. (2015). The Relationship between Organizational Agility and Employee’s Productivity (Case Study: Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Iran), ss.66-70
• Mulhern, J. K. (2008). An exploratory case study of organizational agility in a consortium of small private college libraries (Doktora Tezi). (http://www.proquest.com . No:304404536)
• Nagel, R. N.ve Bhargava, P. (1994). Agility: the ultimate requirement for world‐class manufacturing performance. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 13(3), ss.331-340.
• Nath, A. K., Saha, P., ve Salehi-Sangari, E. (2008). Transforming Supply Chains in Digital Content Delivery: A Case Study in Apple. In Research and Practical Issues of Enterprise Information Systems II (ss. 1079-1089). Springer, Boston, MA.
• Nejatian, M. ve Hossein Zarei, M. (2013). Moving Towards Organizational Agility: Are We Improving in the Right Direction?. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 14(4), ss.241–253.
• Özbay,T. (2004) İstanbul Ticaret Odası, Yayın No: 2004-27 İstanbul, (http://www.ito.org.tr/itoyayin/0023185.pdf).
• Prahalad, C. K.,ve Hamel, G. (1990) The Core Competence of the Corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3),ss.79-91.
• Putnik, G.D. (2001) BM-Virtual Enterprise Architecture Reference Model, Agile Manufacturing: The 21st Century Competitive Strategy, Elsevier Science, ss. 73-94.
• Setili, A. (2014). The Agility Advantage: How To Identify And Act On Opportunities in A Fastchanging World (http://www.eblib.com).
• Shafer, R. A., Dyer, L., Kilty, J.,Amos, J. ve Ericksen, J. (2001). Crafting A Human Resource Strategy To Foster Organizational Agility: A case study. Human Resource Management, 40(3), ss. 197–211, (http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/EMR.2003.1207061).
• Shahaei, B. (2008). Paradigm Of Agility, Definitions, Features And Concepts. Tadbir Publication, 194th Issue, ss.14-18.
• Sharifi, H. ve Zhang, Z. (1999). A Methodology For Achieving Agility In Manufacturing Organisations: An Introduction. International journal of production economics, 62(1), ss. 7-22
• Sharifi, H. ve Zhang, Z. (2001). Agile manufacturing in practice—application of a methodology. International Journal of Operations and Production Management 21 (5–6), ss.772–794.
• Sharifi, H., Colquhoun, G., Barclay, I. ve Dann, Z. (2001). Agile Manufacturing: A Management And Operational Framework. Proceedings of The Institution of Mechanical Engineers - Part B -- Engineering Manufacture (Professional Engineering Publishing), 215(6), ss.857-869
• Sharma, S. (1996). Applied Multivariate Techniques, New York, John Willey & Sons. Inc.
• Sharp, J.M., Irani, Z. ve Desai, S. (1999). Working towards Agile Manufacturing in the UK Industry, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 62, No. 1/2, ss. 155-169.
• Sherehiy, B., Karwowski, W. ve Layer, J. K. (2007). A review of enterprise agility: Concepts, frameworks, and attributes. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 37(5), ss. 445-460.
• Sukati, I., Hamid, A. B., Baharun, R., Yusoff, R. M., ve Anuar, M. A. (2012). The effect of organizational practices on supply chain agility: An empirical investigation on Malaysia manufacturing industry. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 40, ss. 274-281.
• Sümer, N. (2000 ). Yapısal Eşitlik Modelleri: Temel Kavramlar ve Örnek Uygulamalar, Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3, ss. 49-74.
• Şahin, E., Çemberci, M., Civelek, M. E. ve Uca, N. (2017). The Role of Agility in the Effect of Trust in Supply Chain on Firm Performance. Management Studies. 5, ss. 336-345.
• Tabak, A., Polat, M., Coşar, S. ve Türköz, T. (2012). Otantik Liderlik Ölçeği: Güvenirlik ve Geçerlik Çalışması. İş, Güç: The Journal of Industrial Relations & Human Resources, 14(4), ss.89-106
• Tabak, A., Sigri, Ü., & Türköz, T. (2013). Öz Liderlik Ölçeginin Türkçeye Uyarlanmasi Çalismasi. Bilig, 67, 213-246
• Tan, B. (1998). Agile Manufacturing And Management Of Variability. International Transactions in Operational Research, 5(5), ss. 375-388. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475 3995.1998.tb00121)
• Tavşancıl, E. (2002). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi. Nobel Yayıncılık, Ankara.
• Teece, D., Pisano, G. ve Shuen A. (1997). Dynamic Capabilities And Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal 18: ss. 509-533.
• Van Assen,M.F.,Hans, E.W. ve Van De Velde (2001). An agile planning and control framework for customer-order driven discrete parts manufacturing environments, International Journal of Agile Management Systems, Vol. 2, No. 1, ss. 16-23.
• Volberda, H. W. (1996). Toward the flexible form: How to remain vital in hypercompetitive environments. Organization science, 7(4), ss. 359-374.
• Winter, S. G. (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), ss. 991-995.
• Zaheer, A. ve Zaheer, S. (1997). Catching the Wave: Alertness, Responsiveness, and the Market Influence in Global Electronic Networks. Management Science, 43(11), ss.1493-1509.
• Zhang, D. Z. (2011). Towards theory building in agile manufacturing strategies—Case studies of an agility taxonomy. International Journal of Production Economics, 131(1), ss. 303-312.
• Zhang, Z. ve Sharifi, H. (2000). A Methodology for Achieving Agility in Manufacturing Organisations, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 20, No. 4, ss.496-513.
• Zwick, W. R.ve Velicer, W. F. (1986). Comparison Of Five Rules For Determining The Number Of Components To Retain, Psychological Bulletin, 99(3), ss.432-442.