Araştırma Makalesi
PDF EndNote BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

STRATEGY AND STRUCTURE TYPES IN BUSINESS AND A CONCEPTUAL MODEL PROPOSAL ON THEIR RELATIONSHIP

Yıl 2020, Cilt 15, Sayı 1, 17 - 28, 25.07.2020

Öz

Nowadays, strategic management has become indispensable for organizations where there is an intense competitive environment. Organizational strategy and structure determined by organizations according to changing environmental conditions constitute two important pillars of strategic management. Although there are many studies investigating the relationship between organizational strategy and organizational structure in the strategic management literature, less studies investigating the relationship between Michael Porter's competitive strategies typology and the types of organizational structure of Tom Burns and G. M. Stalker reveal the need for studies in this area. Based on this need, the main purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between organizational strategy and organizational structure and to present a general framework for Porter's competitive strategies in relation to the organizational structure types of Burns and Stalker.

Kaynakça

  • Aktaş, M. (2012). İşletme stratejisi ve performans yönetimi ilişkisi: Strateji-yapı perspektifi. “İŞ, GÜÇ" Endüstri İlişkileri ve İnsan Kaynakları Dergisi, 14(1), 91-102.
  • Aydemir, N. (1991). İşletmelerde strateji-yapı ilişkisi ve buna ilişkin bir uygulama. Doktora tezi. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  • Bal, Y. (2011). Rekabet stratejilerinin insan kaynakları yönetimi uygulamalarına etkisi. Doktora tezi. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  • Beal, R.M. (2000). Competing effectively: environmental scanning, competitive strategy, and organizational performance in small manufacturing firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 38(1), 27-47.
  • Boyd, B. ve Fulk, J. (1996). Executive scanning and perceived uncertainty: a multidimensional model. Journal of Management, 22(1), 1-21.
  • Burns, T. E. & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.
  • Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the american industrial enterprise. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.
  • Claver‐Cortés, E., Pertusa‐Ortega, E. M. ve Molina‐Azorín, J. F. (2012). Characteristics of organizational structure relating to hybrid competitive strategy: implications for performance. Journal of Business Research, 65, 993–1002.
  • Covin, J.G. ve Slevin, D. P. (1990). New venture strategic posture, structure, and performance: An industry life cycle analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 5(2), 123-135.
  • Dess, G.G. ve Keats, B.W. (1987). Environmental boundary-spanning and information-processing effects on organisational performance. Academy of Management Proceedings, 21-25.
  • Eren, E. (2013). Stratejik yönetim ve işletme politikası (9th ed.). İstanbul: Beta Yayıncılık.
  • Govindarajan, V. (1988). A contingency approach to strategy implementation at the business-unit level: Integrating administrative mechanisms with strategy. The Academy of Management Journal, 31(4): 828-853.
  • Hambrick, D.C. (1980). Operationalizing the concept of business-level strategy in research. Academy of Management Review, 5(4), 567-75.
  • Hambrick, D. C. (1983a). High-profit strategies in mature capital goods industries: A contingency approach. The Academy of Management Journal, 26, 687-707.
  • Hatch, M. J. (1997). Organization theory. Oxford University Press.
  • Hatch, M. J., ve Cunliffe, A. L. (2006). Organization theory: modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Hatten, K.J., Schendel, D.E. ve Cooper, A.C. (1978). A strategic model of the US brewing industry: 1952-1971. Academy of Management Journal, 21(4), 592-610.
  • Hutt, M.D., Reingen, P.H. ve Ronchetto, J.R. Jr (1988). Tracing emergent processes in marketing strategy formation. Journal of Marketing, 52(1), 4-19.
  • Jennings, D.F. ve Lumpkin, J.R. (1992). Insights between environmental scanning activities and porter’s generic strategies: An empirical analysis. Journal of Management, 18(4), 791-803.
  • Jennings, D.F., Rajaratnam, D. ve Lawrence, F.B. (2003). Strategy-performance relationships in service firms: A test for equifinality. Journal of Managerial Issues, 15(2), 208-220.
  • Kabadayi, S., Eyuboglu, N. ve Thomas, G.P. (2007). The performance ımplications of designing multiple channels to fit with strategy and environment. Journal of Marketing, 71(4), 195-211.
  • Khandwalla, P.N. (1977). The design of organizations. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
  • Kırım, A. (1998). Yeni dünyada strateji ve yönetim. İstanbul: Sistem Yayıncılık.
  • Kim, L. ve Lim, Y. (1988). Environment generic strategies, and performance in a rapidly developing country: A taxonomic approach. Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 802-827.
  • Koçel, T. (2015). İşletme yöneticiliği. İstanbul: Beta Yayıncılık.
  • Marlin, D., Hoffman, J.J. ve Lamont, B.T. (1994a). Porter’s generic strategies, dynamic environments, and performance: A profile deviation fit perspective. International Journal of Analysis, 2(2), 155-175.
  • Marlin, D., Lamont, B.T. ve Hoffman, J.J. (1994b). Choice situation, strategy, and performance: A re-examination. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 229-239.
  • Miles, R. E. ve Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Miller, D. ve Friesen, P. H. (1984). Organizations: A quantum view. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
  • Miller, D. (1986). Configurations of strategy and structure: Towards a synthesis. Strategic Management Journal, 7(3), 233-49.
  • Miller, D. (1987). The structural and environmental correlates of business strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 8(1), 55-76.
  • Miller, D. (1988). Relating Porter's business strategies to environment and structure: Analysis and performance implications. The Academy of Management Journal, 31(2), 280-308.
  • Miller, D. (1991). Stale in the saddle: Ceo tenure and the match between organization and environment. Management Science, 37(1), 34-52.
  • Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
  • Nandakumar, M.K., Ghobadian, A. ve O’Regan N. (2010). Business-level strategy and performance: The moderating effects of environment and structure. Management Decision. 48(6), 907-939.
  • Neis, D.F., Pereira, M.F. ve Maccari, E.A. (2016). Strategic planning process and organizational structure: Impacts, confluence and, similarities. Brazilian Business Review, 14(5), 479–492.
  • Nemetz, P. L. ve Fry, L. W. (1988). Flexible manufacturing organizations: Implications for strategy formulation and organization design. The Academy of Management Review, 13, 627-638.
  • Oosthuizen, H. (1997). An evaluation of the relevance of the miles and snow strategic typology under present-day conditions of major environmental uncertainty – The emperor’s new clothes or a paradigm shift?. South African Journal of Business Management, 28(2), 63-72.
  • Porter, M. (1980). Competitive strategy - Techniques for analysing industries and competitors. New York: Free Press.
  • Rue, L.W. ve Holland, P.G. (1989). Strategic Management: Concepts and Experience. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Ruekert, R.W., Walker, O.C. Jr ve Roering, K.J. (1985). The organization of marketing activities: A contingency theory of structure and performance. Journal of Marketing, 49(1), 13-25.
  • Ruekert, R.W. ve Walker, O.C. Jr (1987). Interactions between marketing and r&d departments in implementing different business strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 8(3), 233-48.
  • Rumelt, R. P. (1974). Strategy, structure, and economic performance. Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, Cambridge.
  • Russell, R.D. ve Russell, C.J. (1992). An examination of the effects of organisational norms, organisational structure, and environmental uncertainty on entrepreneurial strategy. Journal of Management, 18(4), 639-656.
  • Slevin, D. P. ve Covin, J.G. (1997). Strategy formation patterns, performance, and significance of context. Journal of Management, 23(2), 189-209.
  • Teare, R.E., Costa, J. ve Eccles, G. (1998). Relating strategy, structure, and performance. Journal of Workplace Learning, 10(2), 58–75.
  • Thompson, A.A. Jr ve Strickland, A.J. (1996). Strategic management (9th ed.). Irwin, Chicago, IL.
  • Ülgen, H. ve Mirze, S. K. (2016). İşletmelerde stratejik yönetim (8th ed.). İstanbul: Beta Yayıncılık.
  • Walker, O.C. Jr ve Ruekert, R.W. (1987). Marketing’s role in the implementation of business strategies: A critical review and conceptual framework. Journal of Marketing, 51(3), 15-33.
  • Ward, P.T., Bickford, D.J. ve Leong, G.K. (1996). Configurations of Manufacturing Strategy, Business Strategy, Environment, and Structure. Journal of Management, 22(4), 597-626.
  • Van de Ven, A.H. ve Drazin, R. (1985). The concept of fit in contingency theory. in Staw, B.M. and Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organisational Behavior, JAI Press, Stamford, CT, 333-375.
  • Yeloğlu, H. O. (2008). Örgütlerde yapısal-stratejik konfigürasyonlar: Koşulbağımlılık kuramı, konfigürasyon yaklaşımı bağlamında örgüt yapıları üzerine önermeler. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 3(2), 155-170.

İŞLETMELERDE UYGULANAN STRATEJİ VE YAPI TÜRLERİ VE İLİŞKİLERİNE DAİR BİR KAVRAMSAL MODEL ÖNERİSİ

Yıl 2020, Cilt 15, Sayı 1, 17 - 28, 25.07.2020

Öz

Yoğun rekabet ortamının bulunduğu günümüzde örgütler için stratejik yönetim vazgeçilmez hale gelmiştir. Örgütlerin değişen çevre koşullarına göre belirlediği örgüt stratejisi ve yapısı stratejik yönetimin iki önemli sacayağını oluşturmaktadır. Stratejik yönetim literatüründe örgüt stratejisi ve örgüt yapısı arasındaki ilişkiyi araştıran birçok çalışma bulunmasına karşın, Michael Porter’ın rekabet stratejileri tipolojisi ile Tom Burns ve G. M. Stalker’ın örgüt yapısı türleri arasındaki ilişkiyi araştıran çalışmaların daha az olması bu alanda çalışma yapılması ihtiyacını ortaya koymaktadır. Bu ihtiyaca binaen bu çalışmanın temel amacı, örgüt stratejisi ve örgüt yapısı arasındaki ilişkinin araştırılması ve bu ilişkide Porter’ın rekabet stratejilerinin Burns ve Stalker’ın örgüt yapısı türleri ilişkisine ilişkin genel bir çerçeve sunulmasıdır.

Kaynakça

  • Aktaş, M. (2012). İşletme stratejisi ve performans yönetimi ilişkisi: Strateji-yapı perspektifi. “İŞ, GÜÇ" Endüstri İlişkileri ve İnsan Kaynakları Dergisi, 14(1), 91-102.
  • Aydemir, N. (1991). İşletmelerde strateji-yapı ilişkisi ve buna ilişkin bir uygulama. Doktora tezi. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  • Bal, Y. (2011). Rekabet stratejilerinin insan kaynakları yönetimi uygulamalarına etkisi. Doktora tezi. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  • Beal, R.M. (2000). Competing effectively: environmental scanning, competitive strategy, and organizational performance in small manufacturing firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 38(1), 27-47.
  • Boyd, B. ve Fulk, J. (1996). Executive scanning and perceived uncertainty: a multidimensional model. Journal of Management, 22(1), 1-21.
  • Burns, T. E. & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.
  • Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the american industrial enterprise. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.
  • Claver‐Cortés, E., Pertusa‐Ortega, E. M. ve Molina‐Azorín, J. F. (2012). Characteristics of organizational structure relating to hybrid competitive strategy: implications for performance. Journal of Business Research, 65, 993–1002.
  • Covin, J.G. ve Slevin, D. P. (1990). New venture strategic posture, structure, and performance: An industry life cycle analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 5(2), 123-135.
  • Dess, G.G. ve Keats, B.W. (1987). Environmental boundary-spanning and information-processing effects on organisational performance. Academy of Management Proceedings, 21-25.
  • Eren, E. (2013). Stratejik yönetim ve işletme politikası (9th ed.). İstanbul: Beta Yayıncılık.
  • Govindarajan, V. (1988). A contingency approach to strategy implementation at the business-unit level: Integrating administrative mechanisms with strategy. The Academy of Management Journal, 31(4): 828-853.
  • Hambrick, D.C. (1980). Operationalizing the concept of business-level strategy in research. Academy of Management Review, 5(4), 567-75.
  • Hambrick, D. C. (1983a). High-profit strategies in mature capital goods industries: A contingency approach. The Academy of Management Journal, 26, 687-707.
  • Hatch, M. J. (1997). Organization theory. Oxford University Press.
  • Hatch, M. J., ve Cunliffe, A. L. (2006). Organization theory: modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Hatten, K.J., Schendel, D.E. ve Cooper, A.C. (1978). A strategic model of the US brewing industry: 1952-1971. Academy of Management Journal, 21(4), 592-610.
  • Hutt, M.D., Reingen, P.H. ve Ronchetto, J.R. Jr (1988). Tracing emergent processes in marketing strategy formation. Journal of Marketing, 52(1), 4-19.
  • Jennings, D.F. ve Lumpkin, J.R. (1992). Insights between environmental scanning activities and porter’s generic strategies: An empirical analysis. Journal of Management, 18(4), 791-803.
  • Jennings, D.F., Rajaratnam, D. ve Lawrence, F.B. (2003). Strategy-performance relationships in service firms: A test for equifinality. Journal of Managerial Issues, 15(2), 208-220.
  • Kabadayi, S., Eyuboglu, N. ve Thomas, G.P. (2007). The performance ımplications of designing multiple channels to fit with strategy and environment. Journal of Marketing, 71(4), 195-211.
  • Khandwalla, P.N. (1977). The design of organizations. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
  • Kırım, A. (1998). Yeni dünyada strateji ve yönetim. İstanbul: Sistem Yayıncılık.
  • Kim, L. ve Lim, Y. (1988). Environment generic strategies, and performance in a rapidly developing country: A taxonomic approach. Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 802-827.
  • Koçel, T. (2015). İşletme yöneticiliği. İstanbul: Beta Yayıncılık.
  • Marlin, D., Hoffman, J.J. ve Lamont, B.T. (1994a). Porter’s generic strategies, dynamic environments, and performance: A profile deviation fit perspective. International Journal of Analysis, 2(2), 155-175.
  • Marlin, D., Lamont, B.T. ve Hoffman, J.J. (1994b). Choice situation, strategy, and performance: A re-examination. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 229-239.
  • Miles, R. E. ve Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Miller, D. ve Friesen, P. H. (1984). Organizations: A quantum view. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
  • Miller, D. (1986). Configurations of strategy and structure: Towards a synthesis. Strategic Management Journal, 7(3), 233-49.
  • Miller, D. (1987). The structural and environmental correlates of business strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 8(1), 55-76.
  • Miller, D. (1988). Relating Porter's business strategies to environment and structure: Analysis and performance implications. The Academy of Management Journal, 31(2), 280-308.
  • Miller, D. (1991). Stale in the saddle: Ceo tenure and the match between organization and environment. Management Science, 37(1), 34-52.
  • Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
  • Nandakumar, M.K., Ghobadian, A. ve O’Regan N. (2010). Business-level strategy and performance: The moderating effects of environment and structure. Management Decision. 48(6), 907-939.
  • Neis, D.F., Pereira, M.F. ve Maccari, E.A. (2016). Strategic planning process and organizational structure: Impacts, confluence and, similarities. Brazilian Business Review, 14(5), 479–492.
  • Nemetz, P. L. ve Fry, L. W. (1988). Flexible manufacturing organizations: Implications for strategy formulation and organization design. The Academy of Management Review, 13, 627-638.
  • Oosthuizen, H. (1997). An evaluation of the relevance of the miles and snow strategic typology under present-day conditions of major environmental uncertainty – The emperor’s new clothes or a paradigm shift?. South African Journal of Business Management, 28(2), 63-72.
  • Porter, M. (1980). Competitive strategy - Techniques for analysing industries and competitors. New York: Free Press.
  • Rue, L.W. ve Holland, P.G. (1989). Strategic Management: Concepts and Experience. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Ruekert, R.W., Walker, O.C. Jr ve Roering, K.J. (1985). The organization of marketing activities: A contingency theory of structure and performance. Journal of Marketing, 49(1), 13-25.
  • Ruekert, R.W. ve Walker, O.C. Jr (1987). Interactions between marketing and r&d departments in implementing different business strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 8(3), 233-48.
  • Rumelt, R. P. (1974). Strategy, structure, and economic performance. Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, Cambridge.
  • Russell, R.D. ve Russell, C.J. (1992). An examination of the effects of organisational norms, organisational structure, and environmental uncertainty on entrepreneurial strategy. Journal of Management, 18(4), 639-656.
  • Slevin, D. P. ve Covin, J.G. (1997). Strategy formation patterns, performance, and significance of context. Journal of Management, 23(2), 189-209.
  • Teare, R.E., Costa, J. ve Eccles, G. (1998). Relating strategy, structure, and performance. Journal of Workplace Learning, 10(2), 58–75.
  • Thompson, A.A. Jr ve Strickland, A.J. (1996). Strategic management (9th ed.). Irwin, Chicago, IL.
  • Ülgen, H. ve Mirze, S. K. (2016). İşletmelerde stratejik yönetim (8th ed.). İstanbul: Beta Yayıncılık.
  • Walker, O.C. Jr ve Ruekert, R.W. (1987). Marketing’s role in the implementation of business strategies: A critical review and conceptual framework. Journal of Marketing, 51(3), 15-33.
  • Ward, P.T., Bickford, D.J. ve Leong, G.K. (1996). Configurations of Manufacturing Strategy, Business Strategy, Environment, and Structure. Journal of Management, 22(4), 597-626.
  • Van de Ven, A.H. ve Drazin, R. (1985). The concept of fit in contingency theory. in Staw, B.M. and Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organisational Behavior, JAI Press, Stamford, CT, 333-375.
  • Yeloğlu, H. O. (2008). Örgütlerde yapısal-stratejik konfigürasyonlar: Koşulbağımlılık kuramı, konfigürasyon yaklaşımı bağlamında örgüt yapıları üzerine önermeler. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 3(2), 155-170.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Konular Sosyal
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Muhammed Seyda AKDAĞ> (Sorumlu Yazar)
YILDIZ TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ
0000-0002-5070-4001
Türkiye


Yasemin BAL>
YILDIZ TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ
0000-0002-3718-3424
Türkiye

Yayımlanma Tarihi 25 Temmuz 2020
Yayınlandığı Sayı Yıl 2020, Cilt 15, Sayı 1

Kaynak Göster

Bibtex @araştırma makalesi { beyder761497, journal = {Bilgi Ekonomisi ve Yönetimi Dergisi}, eissn = {1308-3937}, address = {}, publisher = {İbrahim Güran YUMUŞAK}, year = {2020}, volume = {15}, number = {1}, pages = {17 - 28}, title = {İŞLETMELERDE UYGULANAN STRATEJİ VE YAPI TÜRLERİ VE İLİŞKİLERİNE DAİR BİR KAVRAMSAL MODEL ÖNERİSİ}, key = {cite}, author = {Akdağ, Muhammed Seyda and Bal, Yasemin} }
APA Akdağ, M. S. & Bal, Y. (2020). İŞLETMELERDE UYGULANAN STRATEJİ VE YAPI TÜRLERİ VE İLİŞKİLERİNE DAİR BİR KAVRAMSAL MODEL ÖNERİSİ . Bilgi Ekonomisi ve Yönetimi Dergisi , 15 (1) , 17-28 . Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/beyder/issue/55730/761497
MLA Akdağ, M. S. , Bal, Y. "İŞLETMELERDE UYGULANAN STRATEJİ VE YAPI TÜRLERİ VE İLİŞKİLERİNE DAİR BİR KAVRAMSAL MODEL ÖNERİSİ" . Bilgi Ekonomisi ve Yönetimi Dergisi 15 (2020 ): 17-28 <https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/beyder/issue/55730/761497>
Chicago Akdağ, M. S. , Bal, Y. "İŞLETMELERDE UYGULANAN STRATEJİ VE YAPI TÜRLERİ VE İLİŞKİLERİNE DAİR BİR KAVRAMSAL MODEL ÖNERİSİ". Bilgi Ekonomisi ve Yönetimi Dergisi 15 (2020 ): 17-28
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - İŞLETMELERDE UYGULANAN STRATEJİ VE YAPI TÜRLERİ VE İLİŞKİLERİNE DAİR BİR KAVRAMSAL MODEL ÖNERİSİ AU - Muhammed SeydaAkdağ, YaseminBal Y1 - 2020 PY - 2020 N1 - DO - T2 - Bilgi Ekonomisi ve Yönetimi Dergisi JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 17 EP - 28 VL - 15 IS - 1 SN - -1308-3937 M3 - UR - Y2 - 2020 ER -
EndNote %0 Bilgi Ekonomisi ve Yönetimi Dergisi İŞLETMELERDE UYGULANAN STRATEJİ VE YAPI TÜRLERİ VE İLİŞKİLERİNE DAİR BİR KAVRAMSAL MODEL ÖNERİSİ %A Muhammed Seyda Akdağ , Yasemin Bal %T İŞLETMELERDE UYGULANAN STRATEJİ VE YAPI TÜRLERİ VE İLİŞKİLERİNE DAİR BİR KAVRAMSAL MODEL ÖNERİSİ %D 2020 %J Bilgi Ekonomisi ve Yönetimi Dergisi %P -1308-3937 %V 15 %N 1 %R %U
ISNAD Akdağ, Muhammed Seyda , Bal, Yasemin . "İŞLETMELERDE UYGULANAN STRATEJİ VE YAPI TÜRLERİ VE İLİŞKİLERİNE DAİR BİR KAVRAMSAL MODEL ÖNERİSİ". Bilgi Ekonomisi ve Yönetimi Dergisi 15 / 1 (Temmuz 2020): 17-28 .
AMA Akdağ M. S. , Bal Y. İŞLETMELERDE UYGULANAN STRATEJİ VE YAPI TÜRLERİ VE İLİŞKİLERİNE DAİR BİR KAVRAMSAL MODEL ÖNERİSİ. Journal of Knowlede Economy & Knowledge Management. 2020; 15(1): 17-28.
Vancouver Akdağ M. S. , Bal Y. İŞLETMELERDE UYGULANAN STRATEJİ VE YAPI TÜRLERİ VE İLİŞKİLERİNE DAİR BİR KAVRAMSAL MODEL ÖNERİSİ. Bilgi Ekonomisi ve Yönetimi Dergisi. 2020; 15(1): 17-28.
IEEE M. S. Akdağ ve Y. Bal , "İŞLETMELERDE UYGULANAN STRATEJİ VE YAPI TÜRLERİ VE İLİŞKİLERİNE DAİR BİR KAVRAMSAL MODEL ÖNERİSİ", Bilgi Ekonomisi ve Yönetimi Dergisi, c. 15, sayı. 1, ss. 17-28, Tem. 2020