Professional Documents
Culture Documents
.
/
/
/
E-mail:ragheedibrahimee@yahoo.co.uk
E-mail:akramahmadaltaweel@yahoo.co.uk
) (
.
.
:
1.
2.
) ( 3.
:
.
.
.
The Relationship Between the Types of Technical Innovation, and The Dimensions of the
Competitive Advantage / An Empirical Study In Selected Groups From Industrial
Companies / Ninevah
Abstract
Discussion Seeks to Determine the Relationship (Correlation Relationship and Effect ) Between the Types
of Technical and Creative Dimensions of Competitive Advantage in selected industrial enterprises in the
province of Nineveh, The interest of the company's senior Management Types of Industrial Innovation and
Technical Dimensions of Competitive Advantage Contribute to the Feasibility of Something unique by which
the company win On the other Rivals and thus Achieve Success, Survival and growth in the business world,
and the limited studies on the relationship between these variables, particularly in the Iraqi environment, the
researchers sought to present their research to include such variables within the framework of holistic attempt
to study the relationship between them. In general, try to research the answer to the following questions:
1. Is there a clear vision of the managers in companies under discussion on the concept and the Types of
Technical Innovation?
2. Is there a clear vision of the managers in companies under discussion on the concept and the dimensions of
competitive advantage?
3. What is the nature of the Relationship (Correlation Relationship and Effect) Between the types of
Technical Innovation, and the Dimensions of The Competitive Advantage of companies in question?
:The Reaches the following findings
-There is a Significant Correlation Relationship between Types of Technical Innovation and the Dimensions
of the Competitive Advantage in Companies under Research?
-There is a Significant Effect for The Types of Technolical Innovation in dimensions of Competitive
Advantage in Companies under Research?
Depending on these conclusions, which the study reached, a number of recommendations were presented
with these conclusions.
) (
.
1
.
) (
.
) (
.
.
.
.
:
:
: : ) ( .
.
.
.
) (14/12/2008 -1/12/2008
) (
.
:
.1
.2 ) (
: : :
.1
.
.2 ) -2008
.(2003
.3 ) (
.
: : ) (1
) ( .
) (1
:
:
:
1. .
2.
.
:
. :
1. .
2. .
: :
) (
.
: :
) .(2008/12/1 -2009/1/21
.1 :
2. :
-:
1. /.
2. / .
3. / .
4. /.
: :
:
1 )(
.
2. )(:
(*) ).(1
Thom,1990),(Stoner,et.al,1996)(Subramanain and):
(,Nilaktanta,1997) (Schermerhorn,et.al,1997)(1999)
) (2002.(2005
(Davis,et.al,2003) :)(Slack,et.al,2004,44)Krajewsky and
(,Ritzman,2005) (Stevenson,2007) (Evans and Collier,2007)(2008
: : :
1. .
2.
.
3. ) (
) (. ) (SPSS
.
: :
1. :
)(1 .
) (1 )*(
/
/
2002
1994
.
) ( 1954 )
( 1957 ) 1988
(
6/3/1988
) ( 1986
////
/ /
/
/
/
/
/ /
.
)*(
) (
. . .
.
.
.
2. :
**
*) ** ( )(2008/12/2-2008/12/9
*
. ) (52 ) (48
) .(%92.3 ) (2
) (%37.5
) (%62.5 .
. )(3
)(2 )*(
% % %
) (3 )**(
%
4.2 2
)**(
12.5
6
62.5 30
16.6
8
%
4.2
2
)(2 )(95.8 %
.
).(4
5-1
) (4 )()** *(
26
25--21
20-16
15-11
10-6
12.
6
4.2
2
5
)** *(
13
%
27.
1
12
%
25
10
%
20.
8
%
10.
4
:
:
: : :
-1 : )(Galanakis and Passey,2001,35
.)
(Griffin,1993,536
. ) ( Jones,1995,414
.) (Stoner,et.al,1996,426
. )
(20004
. )
(King and Kugler,2000,486
. ) (Daft,2001,357
.) (Diaye,2002,2
.) 2003
(71
.)
(200510
.) (Willam,2007,228 )
(
.)(20088
.
) (
) (
.
- : ) (Thom,1990,183
. ) (200847
) : (
(Stoner,et.al,1996,426 ):)Subramanain and
(Nilaktanta,1997,637) (Schermerhorn,et.al,1997,407)(199916
) (200289 ) (200524 :
1. ::
.1-1 .1-2/. ) (.
2. ::
:1-2 :2-2/. ) (.
:
6
1. : ) (Sevege,1989,501
.) (Evans,1997,88
.) (199972
. )
(Evans,1997,19
.)(2002182
.
) (Russell and Taylor,2000,187
.)(2003222
.) (59-200485
.) (Malee,2005,163
.) (200665
) ( .
) (Evans and Collier,2007,129-130
.) (200847
.
) ( .
:
:1-1 :) (Darymple and Parsons,2000,219
.)
(2002167
.)(2003198
.)
(200494
.)2004
(129
.
.
:2-1 ) (:) (Vonderembse and White,1991,115
:
:1 :2/. :3/. .
) (2002168
.)
(Perter,and Donnelly,2001,99-100
.)
(200496
.) (2006145
)
) (%40 -%25
(%5 .)(126-2006125
.) (200853
.
.
2 : ) (Rentzhog,1996,220 ) (process
.) (Davenport and Short,1990,12
8
.) (Tinnla,1995,2
.)-2006320
(321
) ( )(
.)(200860
.
) (Sevege,1989,501
.) (Davaenport,1993,92
. )(200665
.
) (Traill and Grunert,1997,4-5
.) (Pisano and Wheeleright,1995,101
) (%60
.
) (Grunet,et.al,1997,67-68 ) (Thoistruop
.) (200847
) ( ) (.
:
-:1-2 -:2-2/. )(.
:
-:1-2 :) (Vonderembse and White,1991,136
. ) (Noori&Radford,1995:250
. ) (Slack, et.al, 1998:105
.)
(Evans,1993,302
.
.
:2-2 )(:( (Krajewski and Ritzman, 1996 116:
. )
(Evans, 1997: 430
.) (Humphrey,1989,512
:
1. .2/. .3/.
.4/. .5/.
.
.
: :
:
- : ) (Heizer and Render,1999,36
.) (Macmillan and Tampo,2000,88
.)
(Liu,2003,15
.) (200452
)*(
.)(Stevenson,2005,4
. )2004
(74
.)(200530
*)*( : .
10
.)416
(2006
. ) (200640
.) (Evans and Collier,2007,118
:
.
:
) ( .
: :
. )(200819
.
.
)(Davis,et.al,2003,33)(Slack,et.al,2004,44)Krajewsky and Ritzman, ,
(2005,62))(Stevenson,2007,4-14Evans and )(28-200624
(Collier,2007,127).(26-200820
.
1. : ) (Dilworth,1996,58-60
. )
(Aquilano,et.al,1995,24
. ) Slack,
(et.al,2004,44
.)Krajewsky and
11
(Ritzman,2005,62
. ) Evans and
(Collier,2007,124
.) (200624
.) (200821
) (Kmart ) (2002
) (Walmart
.
.
2. :) (Heizer and Render,2001,36
.) (Slack,et.al,2004,45
.)
(Krajewsky and Ritzman,2005,62
) Hindrikes
.
(et.al,2006,18 )(Zolghadar,2007,29
.) (Atem and Yella,2007,14
)
( .
) (Evans and Collier,2007,126
.
) (Karahasanovic and Lonn,2007,1
) (200834
12
. )(20073
:
- /-
Juran .Fitness for Use :
.
3. :) (Dilworth,1996,57
.) (Russell and Taylor,1998,32
.)(Chase,et.al,2001,26
.)(Slack,et.al,2004,45
:
: .
: .
:
.
: .
) (Krajewsky and Ritzman,2005,62
.) (200639
. ) (200825
) (
. )
(William,2007,38-39
.
.
13
4. : ) (Bragmang,1990,5
.) (Slack,et.al,2004,64
. ) (Krajewsky and Ritzman,2005,64
:
:
.
: .
:
.
) (Evans and Collier,2007,126
. ) (200826
.
.
:
:
: :
)(2003-2008
)*(
: / -:
1: :
1-1: : .
:2-1 : .
2: :
1-2: : ) (16
2/ .
2-2: : .
: / :
1: :
*) * (
(2008/12/20-2008/12/25
14
1-1: : /.
/. /. .
:2-1 : /.
.
: /:
1: :
1-1: : / /
) (.
2: :
1-2: : / ) (40
.
2-2: : ) ( ) (50
) (80
/. ) ( )
(.
: /:
1: :
1-1: : / .
:2-1 : /
.
2: :
1-2: : .
2-2: : /
.
: :
)(5
)* (0.815 .
.
) (5 )*(
*0.719
*0.889
*0.758
*0.695
15
*0.822
0.667
*0.722
*0.755
*0.678
*0.785
*0.815
)*(
*N=48
p 0.05
:
1. : ) (5
)* .(0.822 ) (Evans,1997
.
)* .(0.719
) (2002
.
)* .(0.899
) (Evans and Collier,2007
.
)* .(0.785 ) (Dillworth,1996
. )(5
)*
.(0.695 ) (Noori and Radford,1995
. )
(Krajewsky and Ritzman,2005
.
.
2. : ) (5
)* .(0.785 )(Krajewsky and Ritzman,2005
)
(.
)* .(0.667 )
(Sevege,1989
.
16
)* (0.722 ) (Vondermse and Whitee,1991
.
) ( Stonebraker and Leong,1994
.
) (Wesner,et.al,1995
.
.
: :
) (6
:
) (6 )*(
F
R2
B1
B0
0.92
0.6
*)4.08 98.78* 0.782 8.21
2
(
N= (48) ,p 0.05
*
(df (1 , 46
) ( t
) (6
) (F )* (98.78 )
(4.08 ) (46 , 1 ) .(0.05 )
(R2)(0.782 ) (78.2 % )(
. ) ( ) (T
) (T )* (8.21 )
(1.68 ) (0.05 ).( 46 , 1
.
).(7
) (7
)*(
2
17
0.46
0.45
*)(2.46
0.36
0.29
*)(2.10
)*(
0.52
0.32
0.40
*)(2.82)* (1.95
*)(2.10
0.22
0.38
0.40
3.23
41.72* 0.692
*)(2.25)* (n.s (1.40 (2.40
N=48 , p 0.05 .
) ( ) (Tdf= (2 , 45) .
n.s: not significant
0.771
*49.51
3.23
:
1. : ) (7
) (F )* (49.51
) (3.23 ) (0.05 ), 2
(45 ) (R)(0.771 ) (77.1 %
)(
.
) ( ) (T
) (0.52) (T )* (2.82
(45 )
) (1.68 ), 2
.(0.05 ) (Wheelwright and Sasser,1989
.
) (0.46 )(T ) (1.68
) (45 , 2 ).(0.05 )
18
.
2. : )(7
) (F )*
(41.72 )(3.23 ) (0.05
).(45 , 2 ) ( R2)(0.692 ) (69.2 %
)(
.
) ( ) (T
) (0.40 ) (T
)* (2.40 ) (1.68
) (45 , 2 ) .(0.05 )Krajewsky and
(Ritzman,1993) (Vonderembse and White,1991
.
)(0.38 ) (T )* (2.25
(45 )
,
) (1.68 )2
.(0.05 )(Krajewsky and Ritzman,1993)
(Vonderembse and White,1991
.
) (0.36 ) (T )* (2.10
(45 ,
)(1.68 )2
) .(0.05 )(Krajewsky and Ritzman,1993)
(Vonderembse and White,1991
.
) (T )(n.s1.40
(45 , )
) (T ) (1.68 )2
.(0.05 ) (Denton,1994
.
: .
:
::
19
: :
1.
) (
.
2.
: .
3.
)(
.
: :
1. :
) (10
:1-1
.
:2-1
.
) (2003-2008
.2
.
.3 :
:1-3
.
:2-3 .
:3-3
.
:4 :
:1-4
.
:2-4
.
:3-4
.
:4-4 .
.5
.
::
20
1.
.
2.
.
3. )
(. .
4.
.
5.
.
6.
.
7.
.
8.
)( .
9.
.
10.
.
1 .2002
.1
.2
.2006
.3
.2006
.4
)(38 .2002
1
.5
.2008
:
.6
2005
.7
.2007
21
.8
) (
.1999
.9
.2004
.10
.2008
:
.11
.2002
.12
.2005
.13
.2005
.14 :
1 .2004
2
.15
, .2006
1
.16
.2003
.17
.2000
.18
27 - -.2008
1
.19
.2008
, ,
.20
,,2004
.21
( .2006
, : ,1
.22
,,.2003
1.
3.
Bragman,Audia H.L.T, Purchase Concept For Reducing Lead Times in TimeBased Competition, Business Horizons,Vol.39.No.4,Janaury,1990.
4.
Chase,
Richard,
B.andAquilano,
Nicholas,
J.and
Jacobs,
F.Robert."Operations Management for Competitive Advantage". Mc Graw- Hill
Companies, U.S.A, 2001.
5.Daft, Richard L."Organization Theory and Design"7th ed: South Western College
Publishing, U.S.A,2001.
22
6.
8.
9.
13.
18.
21. Humphrey,W.s,Managing
the
Software
Process,AddisionWesley,Massachusetts, U.S.A, 1989.
22. Karahasanovic,Ermin,and Lonn, Henrik, Selecting the best strategy to Improve
Quality, Keeping in View the Cost and Other Aspects Valj den basta Strategin for
att forbattra Kvaliten med Hansyn till kostnader och andra aspekter,
Department of Terotechnology, School of Technology and
Design,2007.
23. King,W.R.,and KuglerJ.,The Impact of Rhetorical Strategies on Innovatio
Decisions:An Experimental study,Omega ,Vol.28,2000.
24. Krajewsky and RitzmanOperation Management: Strategy and Analysiss
23
25.
26.
38.
43.
24
44. Traill, Bruce and Grunert, Klaus, G."Product and Process Innovation in the
Food Industry".1st ed: Chapman and Hall, London, 1997.
45. Wesner, John W. and Hiatt,Jeffrey M. and Trimble, David C. "Winning with
Quality: Applying Quality Principles in Product Development:Addison-Wesley
publishing company,"U.S.A,1995.
46. Wheelwright.s.c.,and Sasser,w.E.,The New Product Development Map,
Harvard Business Review.,May-June,1989.
47.
Vonderembse,Mark
A.and
White,Gregory
P."Operations
nd
Management:Concepts, Methods,and Strategies".2 ed:West Publishing Company,
U.S.A,1991.
48.
(1)
/
"
" /
.
25
) ( :
:
1-5:
25-21
. :
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2.
8
9
10
11
12
11-15
26
6-10
16-20
)
(3
)(2
)(1
1. :
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:
.
.
.
.
.
. :
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
)
(3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
26
)(2
)(1
25
26
)
(3
27
)(2
)(1