Anderson, J.C. and D.W. Gerbing, 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3): 411-423.
Arief, M., A. Thoyib, A. Sudiro and F. Rohman, 2013. The effect of entrepreneurial orientation on the firm performance through strategic flexibility: A study on the smes cluster in malang. Journal of Management Research, 5(3): 44-62.
Arunachalam, S., S.N. Ramaswami, P. Herrmann and D. Walker, 2013. Entrepreneurial orientation, innovation and firm performance: Moderating role of marketing capabilities. American Marketing Association, 24: 281-282.
Barclay, D., C. Higgins and R. Thompson, 1995. The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal modeling: Personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Technology Studies, 2(2): 285-309.
Baron, R.M. and D.A. Kenny, 1986. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6): 1173-1182.
Bedi, H.S. and S. Vij, 2012. Relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: A review of literature. IUP Journal of Business Strategy, 9(3): 17-31.
Chow, W.S. and L.S. Chan, 2008. Social network, social trust and shared goals in organizational knowledge sharing. Information & Management, 45(7): 458-465.
Covin Jeffrey, G. and P. Slevin Dennis, 1989. Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1): 75-87.
Covin, J.G., K.M. Green and D.P. Slevin, 2006. Strategic process effects on the entrepreneurial orientation–sales growth rate relationship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1): 57-81.
Davis, J.L., 2007. Firm-level entrepreneurship and performance: An examination and extension of relationships and measurements of the entrepreneurial orientation construct. Arlington: University of Texas at Arlington.
Day, G.S., 1994. The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of Marketing, 58(4): 37-52.
Fornell, C. and J. Cha, 1994. Partial least squares. Advanced Methods of Marketing Research, 407: 52-78.
Fornell, C. and D.F. Larcker, 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1): 39-50.
Gunawan, T., J. Jacob and G. Duysters, 2013. Entrepreneurial orientation and network ties: Innovative performance of smes in an emerging-economy manufacturing cluster, No.2013/28.
Hair, J., W. Black, B. Babin and R. Anderson, 2010. Multivariate data analysis. 7th Edn., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Harms, R., 2013. From entrepreneurial orientation to performance: Inside the black box of corporate entrepreneurship. Management, 16(4): 410-421.
Hermann, F., A. Kessler and M. Fink, 2010. Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance–a replication study. Schmalenbach Business Review, 62(2): 175-198.
Hughes, M. and R.E. Morgan, 2007. Deconstructing the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and business performance at the embryonic stage of firm growth. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(5): 651-661.
Kimberly, J.R., 1981. Managerial innovation, handbook of organizational design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Knight, G.A., 1997. Cross-cultural reliability and validity of a scale to measure firm entrepreneurial orientation. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(3): 213-225.
Kohli, A.K. and B.J. Jaworski, 1990. Market orientation: The construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54(2): 1-18.
Kraus, S., J.C. Rigtering, M. Hughes and V. Hosman, 2012. Entrepreneurial orientation and the business performance of smes: A quantitative study from the Netherlands. Review of Managerial Science, 6(2): 161-182.
Lau, K.H. and J. Zhang, 2006. Drivers and obstacles of outsourcing practices in China. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 36(10): 776-792.
Lumpkin, G.T. and G.G. Dess, 1996. Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1): 135-172.
Miller, D. and L. Breton-Miller, 2011. Governance, social identity, and entrepreneurial orientation in closely held public companies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(5): 1051-1076.
Miller, D. and P.H. Friesen, 1978. Archetypes of strategy formulation. Management Science, 24(9): 921-933.
Miller, D. and P.H. Friesen, 1982. Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms: Two models of strategic momentum. Strategic Management Journal, 3(1): 1-25.
Narver, J.C. and S.F. Slater, 1990. The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54(4): 20-35.
Sila, I. and M. Ebrahimpour, 2002. An investigation of the total quality management survey based research published between 1989 and 2000: A literature review. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 19(7): 902-970.
Venkatraman, N., 1989. Strategic orientation of business enterprises: The construct, dimensionality, and measurement. Management Science, 35(8): 942-962.
Wrenn, B., 1997. The market orientation construct: Measurement and scaling issues. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 5(3): 31-54.
Zahra, S.A., 1991. Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 6(4): 259-285.
Zahra, S.A., D.F. Jennings and D.F. Kuratko, 1999. The antecedents and consequences of firm-level entrepreneurship: The state of the field. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24(2): 45-66.
Gaboul Ahmed Faiz , Fais Bin Ahmed , Abdullah Kaid Al-Swidi (2015). The Mediating Effect of Market Orientation on the Relationship between Entrepreneurial Orientation Dimensions and Organizational Performance: A Study on Banks in Libya. Games Review, 1(2): 40-51. DOI: 10.18488/journal.100/2015.1.2/18.104.22.168
The main purpose of this study was to investigate the mediating effect of Market Orientation (MO) on the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation dimensions (EO) namely: Innovativeness, Proactiveness, Risk-taking and organizational performance (OP). The motivation for this study was driven by the inconsistent findings in the literature concerning the relationships between EO, and organizational performance. Due to the inconsistent results, a new research has emerged and this has prompted further investigation on the effect of other variables that may better explain the nature of these links. In the related literature, many theories have suggested that the compatibility between strategies, resources, and capabilities as the keys for success. Questionnaires were distributed to 400 Sections of the Libyan banks. 230 questionnaires were returned and used in the analysis using the PLS-SEM. The results of this study revealed that EO dimensions were positive and have also been proven to be significant predictors of organizational performance. More importantly, the results have also confirmed the mediating effect of Market Orientation on the relationships between EO dimensions, and organizational performance.
This study contributes to the existing literature by examined the role of market orientation in maximizing organizational performance – specifically, its mediating role in the relationships of EO and organizational performance.
Dynamic Analysis of Competitive Technology Innovation Diffusion Model
Bass, F.M., 1969. A new product growth model for consumer durables. Management Science, 15(2): 215-227.
Bottomley, P.A. and R. Fildes, 1998. The role of prices in models of innovation diffusion. Journal of Forecasting, 17(17): 539-555.
Centrone, F., S. Goia and E. Salielli, 2007. Demographic processes in a model of innovation diffusion with dynamic market. Technology Forecasting and Social Chang, 74(3): 247-266.
Chanda, U. and A.K. Bardhan, 2008. Modeling innovation and imitation sales of products with multiple technological generations. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 18(2): 173-190.
Dodson, J.A. and E. Muller, 1978. Models of new product diffusion through advertising and world-of-month. Management Science, 24(15): 1568-1578.
Horsky, D. and L.S. Simon, 1983. Advertising and diffusion of new products. Marketing Science, 2(1): 1-17.
Islam, T. and N. Meade, 1997. The diffusion of successive generations of a technology: A more general model. Technology Forecasting and Social Chang, 56(1): 49-60.
Kalish, S., 1985. A new product adoption model with pricing, advertising and uncertainty. Management Science, 31(12): 1569-1585.
Krishnan, T.V., F.M. Bass and V. Kumar, 2000. Impact of late entrant on the diffusion of a new product/service. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(2): 269-278.
Mahajan, V. and R.A. Peterson, 1978. Innovation diffusion in a dynamic potential adopter population. Management Science, 24(15): 1589-1597.
Norton, J.A. and F.M. Bass, 1987. A diffusion theory model of adoption and substitution for successive generation of high technology products. Management Science, 33: 1069-1086.
Simon, H. and K.H. Sebastian, 1987. Diffusion and advertising: German telephone campaign. Management Science, 33(4): 451-466.
Steffens, P.R., 2003. A model of multiple0unit ownership as a diffusion process. Technology Forecasting and Social Chang, 70(9): 901-917.
Steffens, P.R. and D.N. Murphy, 1992. A mathematical model for new product diffusion: The influence of innovators and imitators. Mathematical and Computer Modeling, 16(4): 11-26.
Tanny, S.M. and N.A. Derzko, 1988. Innovators and imitators in innovation diffusion modeling. Journal of Forecasting, 7(4): 225-234.
Ming-Chang Lee (2015). Dynamic Analysis of Competitive Technology Innovation Diffusion Model. Games Review, 1(2): 29-39. DOI: 10.18488/journal.100/2015.1.2/22.214.171.124
Technological innovation diffusion theory and models play an important position in the forecasting field. Many researchers use these models to predict in different areas. Although the basic Bass model easy to use, but there are many limitations, the effects of Bass diffusion model for innovation diffusion factors (such as price, advertising, income, and technology supply) cannot measure. In order to find the principles of the relationships between innovations and the importance of the affection on the active of an innovation, this paper reviews the application of innovation diffusion models in the field of demand forecasting, through summarizing and analyzing a variety of predication models. Competitive innovation diffusion model include of monopolistic competition in a technology diffusion models and the evolution of the coexistence of two technologies competing diffusion evolution model. Under the aim of this paper, it uses mathematical methods in-depth analysis of competition, technological innovation diffusion models. This mathematical method includes nonlinear equilibrium point, stability analysis. Through the asymmetric evolutionary stability analysis, the paper derived the long-term evolutionary stable equilibrium of the innovation. Finally, the paper gives some suggestions on how to strength the competitive technology innovation in diffusion model.
The paper’s primary contribution is the establishment of a competitive technological innovation diffusion model base on Bass model. It has built monopoly competitive diffusion model, the coexistence of two technologies competing diffusion model and lemma and theorem to solve this nonlinear equilibrium point.