7th AICIF UNIDA Gontor Indonesia, 3rd & 4th December 2019 | 1
DEVELOPMENT OF THE EQUILATERAL AGILITY CONCEPT TO IMPROVE THE ADVANTAGES OF COMPETITIVE
SHARIA BANKS IN INDONESIA
Lutfi Nurcholis1 and Budhi Cahyono2
1 Universitas Islam Sultan Agung, Semarang 50112, Indonesia, [email protected].
2 Universitas Islam Sultan Agung, Semarang 50112, Indonesia, [email protected].
ABSTRACT
This paper aims to investigate the effect the concept equilateral agility towards sustainable competitive advantage. This study has a sample target of 189 respondents to meet the AMOS program requirements. The target population includes Sharia Banks in the Indonesia. Result of this study show that hypothesis of responsiveness, operational flexibility and business relationship significantly affect sustainable competitive advantage.
JEL Classification: G18, G21, G28 (max 5 words) Keywords: agility, sustainable competitive advantage
Article History: (filled by Conference Book Manager)
Received : ………
Revised : ………
Accepted : ………
Available online : ………
7th AICIF UNIDA Gontor Indonesia, 3rd & 4th December 2019 | 2 I. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
In its development, large and small organizations always continue to face challenges such as globalization, rapid technological progress, competition, the emergence of new markets and the development of consumer preferences. These ever-changing challenges force organizations to become more efficient and agile to survive in order to reduce the risk of more traditional business and economic cycles. According to (Kazlauskienė, Bartusevičienė, & Tamulienė, 2017), many discussions about variations and identification of individual abilities and / or general competencies that arise. There is a lack of a unanimous approach among scholars. The author determines the potential ability to utilize to increase the income of a country's population by differentiating capabilities in the context of the definition and evaluation of intangible assets. one of the main tools for gaining and maintaining competitive advantage in rapidly changing market environment is organizational agility. Agility is one of the main organizational characteristics sought by business people to remain adaptive and competitive in an environment full of uncertainty. Organizations must be proactive and anticipate changes to be able to compete effectively in a changing market environment. The organizational structure must develop greater agility, through flexibility and response to be able to compete effectively. (Svagzdiene, Jasinskas, & Simanavicius, 2017) suggest that there are many differences in the various groups with an interest in the choice of business practices, but they have similarities that can be harmonized. the values conveyed are determinants of organizational learning success. To deal with changing environments and capture new opportunities, practitioners need new organizational solutions, forms and tools. The agile drivers, abilities and practices of the organization are needed for successful adaptation to external forces.
Organizations must be able to understand agility and identify internal organizational factors that influence it to be able to control and increase the level of agility. Marketing strategies are about adjusting and adapting marketing strategies to fit the "unique elements" of individual markets around the world.
Some researchers advocate "adaptation" strategies (Thrassou & Vrontis, 2006).
Advocates of adaptation strategies argue that there are differences that cannot be overcome, including climate, topography, consumer tastes, law, culture, race, technology, disposable income, employment, literacy letters and education levels, taxation, labor costs localism, nationalism and society, among others, that exist in international markets and even between markets in the same country. One of the inseparable and important factors for business success is organizational agility.
7th AICIF UNIDA Gontor Indonesia, 3rd & 4th December 2019 | 3 Agility is expected to contribute and benefit at high levels of income, customer satisfaction, market share and rapid adaptation to the market (Sull, 2010).
In the concept of the company, agility means the company's main ability to adapt to changes that occur continuously. Nimble companies consider adaptation to the environment not only temporary but as an ongoing process.
According to McCann, Selsky, & Lee (2009), "agility is the ability to move quickly, flexibly, and is determined to start, seize and exploit opportunities and avoid the negative effects of change". Meanwhile, Sull, (2010) shows that agility is the ability to identify and capture business opportunities continuously and faster than competitors. In short, agility can be very important for a company's ability which is characterized by speed, flexibility, and adaptability. Organizations with a higher level of agility tend to improve customer-oriented performance on timely delivery and market releases, so organizations are more agile to achieve higher performance than less-agile organizations. SMEs are productive businesses owned by individuals and business entities that have met the criteria for micro-businesses, as stipulated in law and regulation No. 20 of 2008 according to the definition of SMEs, the criteria for SMEs are distinguished in their respective ways including small and medium scale businesses (Narasimhan & Das, 1999).
Increase or decrease in sales can be caused by several factors, such as changes in competition and consumers so that companies need to adjust to ensure survival and success in business performance (Kwahk & Lee, 2008). The ability of a company to generate or create a position in the market is the core of strategy development. Differentiation enables companies to fully utilize their competitive advantage and hence achieve high returns (Yeung & Lau, 2005).
1.2. Objective
This paper aims to investigate the effect the concept equilateral agility towards sustainable competitive advantage.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1. Background Theory
Agility seems to be similar to 'dynamic capabilities' (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997), 'market orientation' (Kohli & Jaworski, 1990), 'absorption' (Zahra & George, 2002) and 'strategic flexibility' (Grewal & Tansuhaj, 2001), although each has different features related to the scope and dimensions of the prevailing composition. Dynamic capability is the ability to integrate, build and reconstruct
7th AICIF UNIDA Gontor Indonesia, 3rd & 4th December 2019 | 4 organizational resources and the ability to adapt to changes in the environment.
Agility is one of the sub-capabilities of dynamic capabilities. Agility is very valuable, difficult to imitate and does not have the ability to be permanently sustainable because related to efforts to detect and exploit opportunities in a dynamic environment. Therefore, agility can improve organizational performance as an organization's core capabilities related to strategy and competitive performance.
2.2. Previous Studies
Organizational agility is a multidimensional topic and it is approached by many researchers from different perspectives. One group of the researchers include Alberts & Hayes (2003), Ã (2010), Cai, Huang, Liu, Davison, & Liang (2013), Charbonnier-Voirin (2011), Eshlaghy, Mashayekhi, Ghatari, & Razavian (2010) and Yusuf, Sarhadi, & Gunasekaran (1999), study agility from the perspective of enablers and capabilities which help organizations to achieve agility. The second group of researchers include Charbonnier-Voirin (2011) and Sherehiy, Ã, & Layer (2007) identify main practices that agile organizations use in their daily operations.
Third group of researchers include Holsapple & Li (2008), Lu & Ramamurthy (2011), Sambamurthy, Bharadwaj, & Grover (2003) and Sharma (2013) approaches agility from the perspective of how organizations interact with changing environment through sense-response dimension.
Most of the earlier research is concentrated only on specific industry of organizations, in particular manufacturing sector, where researchers analyze what manufacturing organization can do to enhance their agility (Ganguly, Nilchiani, &
Farr, 2009; Yusuf et al., 1999). Others evaluate agility in a narrow context of business process or area e.g. supply chain agility (Ren, Yusuf, & Burns, 2008), human resource agility (Breu, Hemingway, Strathern, & Bridger, 2002), knowledge management and IT capabilities (Cai et al., 2013); (Lu & Ramamurthy, 2011); (Sarker & Sarker, 2009); (Sharma, 2013), business processes (Arteta &
Giachetti, 2004), strategic alignment (Tallon & Pinsonneault, 2011a), market orientation (Grewal & Tansuhaj, 2001). Furthermore, Chang, Lu, Su, Lin, & Chang (2010) focuses on agility properties in organization networks.
Based on the literature review, organizational agility is rooted in the manufacturing context which is defined as a manufacturing system that is able to meet changing market needs, shifting rapidly between products, in real time to adapt to changing customer needs. Early agility research of Yusuf et al. (1999) characterizes agility as the ability to reconfigure manufacturing systems to
7th AICIF UNIDA Gontor Indonesia, 3rd & 4th December 2019 | 5 respond to unexpected market changes. Previous research often confuses the definition of organizational agility and manufacturing agility, because it mixes performance results and manufacturing processes (Narasimhan & Das, 1999).
Yusuf et al. (1999) argue that the level of organizational agility is influenced by the alignment of the "competitive base" (speed, flexibility, proactive innovation, quality, and profitability), reconfigurable resources and knowledge. To increase the level of organizational agility, companies must combine these influences and adapt to consumer needs and market changes. Referring back to the discussion about the difference between organizational flexibility and agility, from Yusuf et al. (1999), the definition of the possible differences between the two terms can be identified, with flexibility being an inclusive supporting factor for organizational agility and an emphasis on speed. The concepts of speed and innovation are the main traits brought by organizational agility (Lu & Ramamurthy, 2011). They define agility as an organizational capability as a fast and innovative response, which helps to take advantage of change to deal with unexpected changes in the environment through it. Speed is one of the most important requirements for agility in terms of response and implementation, while innovation refers to the quality and substance of the response (e.g. strategic orientation, product development, decision making) (Cai et al., 2013).
Review of various organizational agility definitions in the scientific literature allows identifying common themes and building blocks of organizational agility. In the simplest form, enterprise agility can be defined as organization’s ability to identify changes in the environment and respond accordingly. Ability to recognize the changes in the environment refers to the know-how, experience and knowledge of the organization and its decision makers.
(Lavie & Rosenkopf, 2006) refers to this ability as ‘knowledge management’.
Environmental change is also present in other definitions of organizational agility as ‘competitive market opportunities’ (Sambamurthy et al., 2003), ‘dynamic and continuous change’ (Joseph, 2001); and referred as changes arising from competitor’s actions, consumer preferences, regulatory or legal changes, economic shifts, technological advancements etc. (Overby, Bharadwaj, & Sambamurthy, 2006). Ability to respond or ‘seize’ (Sambamurthy et al., 2003), ‘reconfigure’
(Najafi-Tavani, Sharifi, & Najafi-Tavani, 2016) is an ability to act in response to the changes and in the situation dictated by the environment and internal resources and abilities. Identification of abilities that help organizations to respond to the environmental changes and their evaluation is one of the purposes of this article.
7th AICIF UNIDA Gontor Indonesia, 3rd & 4th December 2019 | 6 According to some experts, agility characteristics can be defined as follows based on time series; Breu, Hemingway, Strathern, & Bridger (2002) stated that agility is “intelligence capability, speed of skill development, collaboration, culture, and information sharing in response to changes in the business environment“. According to Sambamurthy, Bharadwaj, & Grover (2003), agility is
“the ability to detect and seize market opportunities with speed and surprise“.
“Agility is the ability to respond quickly to fulfilling unpredictable client orders”
(Vervest, Preiss, van Heck, & Pau, 2004). Agility is the ability to detect opportunities for innovation and take advantage of opportunities by collecting the assets, knowledge, and relationships needed (Hovorka & Larsen, 2006).
Based on the views of Fink & Neumann (2018), agility is “the ability to respond efficiently and effectively to emerging market opportunities“. Sarker &
Sarker (2009) stated that “agility is the ability of the information sharing development team is distributed to anticipate, recognize, and react to changes in the environment, including organizational changes, and changes in partner organizations“. Lu & Ramamurthy (2011) said that “agility is the ability to overcome changes that are fast, non-stop, and uncertain and develop in an environment that continues to change unexpectedly “. According to Bradley, Pratt, Byrd, Outlay, & Wynn (2012), agility is “the ability to feel changes in the environment and respond quickly“. According to Chakravarty, Grewal, &
Sambamurthy (2013), agility is “the ability to feel opportunities for competitive action and gathering resources needed to seize that opportunity“. Research from Chen et al. (2014) explained that agility is “the ease and speed that companies use to change their business processes to respond to threats in their markets“. Lee, Sambamurthy, Lim, & Wei (2015) stated that agility is “the company's ability to continue to feel and respond to market changes“. Cai, Liu, Huang, & Liang (2017) shows that agility is “the company's ability to feel and respond effectively to market opportunities and threats “.
Park, Sawy, & Fiss (2017) stated that “agility is defined as a combination of sensing agility, decision-making agility, and agility to act “. Based on opinions Ravichandran (2018), “agility is a competency that allows companies to adapt to the possibilities posed by the environment“. Queiroz, Tallon, Sharma, & Coltman (2018) said that “agility is the ability to detect and respond to opportunities and threats is easy, fast, and agile“. Zhou et al. (2018) defines agility as “the ability to detect and respond to requests that are embedded in customers' online reviews “.
In the opinion of experts from time to time it shows that more agility characteristics includes prioritize speed, skill, responsiveness, rapid response and are able to detect opportunities and create new opportunities. The following are the results
7th AICIF UNIDA Gontor Indonesia, 3rd & 4th December 2019 | 7 of a literature review which can summarize the agility characteristics that can be seen in Table 1.
Table 1.
Characteristics of Agility
Study Characterization of agility
(Sambamurthy et al., 2003)
“capability to detect and seize market opportunities speedily “ (Vervest et al., 2004) “capability to respond quickly to fulfill an unpredictable client order “ (Overby et al., 2006) “capability to sense environmental change and to respond readily “ (Nazir & Pinsonneault,
2012)
“capability to sense and respond to opportunities and threats with ease, speed, and dexterity “
(Holmqvist & Pessi, 2006)
“An organization’s capability to sense and respond rapidly to unpredictable events in order to satisfy changing customer demands “ (Hovorka & Larsen,
2006)
“capability to detect opportunities for innovation and seize opportunities “
(Sarker & Sarker, 2009) “capability of distributed IS development teams to anticipate, recognize, and react to changes in the environment, including organizational changes, and changes in partner organizations “ (Ngai, Chau, & Chan,
2011)
“The organization’s capability to respond to unexpected market changes and convert these changes to business opportunities “ (Huang, Pan, &
Ouyang, 2014)
“capability of firms’ business processes to accomplish speed, accuracy and cost economy in the exploitation of opportunities for innovation and competitive action “
(Richardson, Kettinger, Banks, & Quintana, 2018)
“capability to recognize opportunities for leveraging IT in order to rapidly sense and respond to market opportunities by shaping digital options into competitive actions that result in improved business outcomes “
(Breu et al., 2002) “A workforce’s capabilities of intelligence, speed of skills development, collaboration, culture, and IS in responding to changing business environments “
(van Oosterhout, Waarts, & van Hillegersberg, 2006)
“capability to swiftly change businesses and business processes beyond the normal level of flexibility to effectively manage unpredictable external and internal changes “
(Fink & Neumann, 2018)
“capability to respond efficiently and effectively to emerging market opportunities “
(Tiwana, Konsynski, &
Bush, 2010)
“capability of the IT function to rapidly adapt to new line function demands and opportunities “
(Lu & Ramamurthy, 2011)
“capability to cope with rapid, relentless, and uncertain changes and thrive in an environment of continually and unpredictably changing opportunities “
(Tallon &
Pinsonneault, 2011b)
“capability to detect and respond to opportunities and threats with ease, speed, and dexterity “
(Bradley et al., 2012) “capability to sense environmental change and respond readily “ (Roberts & Grover,
2012)
“capability to which a firm is able to sense and respond quickly to customer-based opportunities for innovation and competitive action “ (Chakravarty et al.,
2013)
“capability to sense opportunities for competitive action and marshal the necessary resources to seize those opportunities “
7th AICIF UNIDA Gontor Indonesia, 3rd & 4th December 2019 | 8 (Chen et al., 2014) “The ease and speed with which firms can alter their business
processes to respond to threats in their markets “
(Lee et al., 2015) “capability of firms to continually sense and respond to market changes
“
(Tiwana & Kim, 2015) “The degree to which the IT unit furthers a firm’s pursuit of strategic business opportunities “
(Lowry & Wilson, 2016)
“capability to respond operationally and strategically to changes in the external through IT “
(Park et al., 2017) “A combination of sensing agility, decision making agility, and acting agility “
(Cai et al., 2017) “The firm-wide capability to sense and respond effectively to market opportunities and threats “
(Queiroz et al., 2018) “capability to detect and respond to opportunities and threats with ease, speed, and dexterity “
(Ravichandran, 2018) “a competence that allows firms to adapt to contingencies posed by the environment “
(Zhou et al., 2018) “capability to detect and respond to demands embedded in customer online reviews “
Source: Results of Research development
2.3. Conceptual Framework Responsiveness
Sensing dimension in sense-response network focuses on the abilities to see the external changes. It is directed outwards of the organization. This dimension is highly dependent on experience and abilities of decision-makers in the organization and their personal abilities. (Lu & Ramamurthy, 2011) refer to this dimension of organizational agility as market capitalizing agility, as it focuses on the internal abilities not only on collecting and processing external and internal information. The organization reaches agility when it can effectively match external changes in the market and customer needs with internal abilities to meet those changes and needs.
Operational Flexibility
To achieve high organizational agility level just sensing abilities are not enough. Once organization realizes that it has to change and adapt to the new environment using sensing abilities, it has to have abilities that empower the internal change. These abilities can vary from one organization to another;
however, some commonalities exist. Response dimension in a sense response framework focuses on the internal abilities of the organization to respond to the environmental changes. Lu & Ramamurthy (2011) call it operational adjustment agility as it focuses on an internal maneuvering to provide fast response to changes and is reactive in nature.
7th AICIF UNIDA Gontor Indonesia, 3rd & 4th December 2019 | 9 Yusuf et al. (1999) bases essential organizational agility enablers on main competitive foundations of agility: speed, flexibility, innovation, proactivity, quality, and profitability. Agility enablers are used as leverage to achieve agile capabilities ((Bottani, 2010); (Eshlaghy et al., 2010); (Yusuf et al., 1999)). Yusuf et al. (1999) discusses seven enablers of agile manufacturing: virtual enterprise formation tools and metrics, physically distributed teams and manufacturing, rapid partnership formation tools and metrics, concurrent engineering, integrated product, production, business information system, rapid prototyping tools, and electronic commerce. Agile capabilities refer to whether the organization is able and can do what is necessary in order to be more agile. Agile capabilities allow organizations to respond effectively to change and reach competitive advantage.
Various researchers use different terms to name those capabilities: responsiveness, quickness, innovation, knowledge management and learning ((Charbonnier- Voirin, 2011); (Lavie & Rosenkopf, 2006); (Bahrami, Kiani, Montazeralfaraj, Zadeh,
& Zadeh, 2016)). Groups of Charbonnier-Voirin (2011) different aptitudes into three key organizational agility capabilities. First one - the ability to mobilize a rapid response to change – is based on reactive flexibility and refers to an ability to organize existing resources. Second capability – aptitude to read the market - refers to the organizational ability to see the changes in the market and identify the opportunities. The third capability in Charbonnier-Voirin (2011)’s framework – aptitude to integrate organizational learning, refers to the organizational capacity to align employee skills and experience with those of organization.
All five enablers of the enterprise should have certain characteristics that make those enablers agile. Foremost, structure and organization should be flexible and open to change. Components of the organizational structure should be easily adaptable to the external and internal agility drivers. Agile structure and organization should have informal, flat, horizontal; with goal-oriented leadership, decentralized knowledge and control, which allows to accept risks and concentrate on teamwork ((Eshlaghy et al., 2010); (Sherehiy et al., 2007)). Processes in the agile organization should be flexible, consist of few rules, procedures and have adaptable role definitions (Sherehiy et al., 2007).
Processes should concentrate and sense external environmental developments and promote adaptation to these changes. According to Sherehiy et al. (2007), human resource agile enabler of the organization should be proactive, adaptable, resilient, be able to collaborate, take personal initiative and responsibility, cope well with stress and unexpected changes. To develop these skills, organizations should promote employee empowerment and involvement, job rotation and enrichment (Sherehiy et al., 2007).
7th AICIF UNIDA Gontor Indonesia, 3rd & 4th December 2019 | 10 In order to implement the agility-based strategy, Gehani (2002) recommends to use the following actions and implement practices based on them:
front-line decision-making empowerment, cross-functional team sharing, modular integration of available technologies, delayed design specification, product succession planning, enterprise-wide integration of learning.
Empowerment of employees allows the organization to shorten the decision- making time, reduces delays, improves response and delivery times. In process employees are more involved and motivated, the organization is more agile in responding to changes and customers are satisfied due to improved service.
Business Relationships
One of the purposes of this article is to identify the common response abilities that successful organizations share and enable them to reach agility.
Response-ability involves various dimensions within the organization and with its partners and is complex in nature, as it involves various levels and dimensions of the organization. Organizations should have a flexible structure, which allows shifting resources easily. Organizational culture should encourage change and empower employees to adapt to the new strategy. The external network should also support organizational agility. Suppliers, outsourced services, partners and other members of the external organizational network should be able to adapt to the changing demands and promote agility. Responsive capabilities refer to the ability to select available actions and enable those actions. When the change occurs in the environment or organization pro-actively identifies opportunities it has to select the appropriate action to take from the alternative ones. Decision makers have to evaluate available opportunities, coordinate and integrate with the rest of the functional areas and outside partners, learn from the experience and reconfigure available resources if necessary (Holsapple & Li, 2008).
Agile organizations should maintain flexible and adaptable networks, both internal and external. Internal networks should rely on teamwork, information and knowledge sharing. External partners, such as suppliers, contractors, distributors, etc., should be able to adapt to the changes in the business environment together with the agile organization. The fifth enabler of agile organizations – technology, should have similar flexibility characteristics as the rest of enablers. In addition, in order to adapt to the fast-changing environment, technologies should be modular, easily scalable and down gradable and have efficient cost structure (Zitkiene & Deksnys, 2018). Table 2 shows the effect agility on performance based on literature review.
7th AICIF UNIDA Gontor Indonesia, 3rd & 4th December 2019 | 11 Table 2
The Effect of Agility on SCA / performance
Reference and Study Type Propositions/Results
(Judge & Miller, 1991) decision speed significantly affects sales growth and profitability (Hayes, Robert H., 2000) Strategic flexibility significantly affects competitive advantage (Adler, Goldoftas, &
Levine, 1999)
A greater number of meta routines significantly affect performance and efficiency
(Young-Ybarra &
Wiersema, 1999)
strategic flexibility significantly affects increased competitiveness (Grewal & Tansuhaj, 2001) Strategic flexibility significantly affects firm performance (Worren, Moore, &
Cardona, 2002)
Strategic flexibility significantly affects firm performance (Joshi & Sharma, 2004) Strategic flexibility significantly affects customer knowledge
development process and new product performance (Nadkarni & Narayanan,
2007)
Strategic flexibility significantly affects firm performance (Tallon & Pinsonneault,
2011b)
Agility significantly affect firm performance (ROA, net margin, and operating income/assets)
Source: Results of literature review
From the literature review above, the hypothesis can be developed as follows:
H1: Responsiveness significantly affect sustainable competitive advantage H2: Operational Flexibility significantly affect sustainable competitive advantage H3: Business Relationship significantly affects sustainable competitive advantage
Source: Results of Research development
Figure 2.
Empirical Model of Research Sustainable Competitive
Advantage
Responsiveness
Operational Flexibility
Business Relationship
H1
H2
H3
7th AICIF UNIDA Gontor Indonesia, 3rd & 4th December 2019 | 12 III. METHODOLOGY
3.1. Data
Data collection techniques used in this study is a type of purposive sampling method. Data collection through face-to-face interviews and questionnaires was conducted. Respondents selected were 198 Sharia Banks managers or owners in Indonesia. Questionnaires collected and filled as much as 198 of the total respondents. During the data processing, there are still 9 data that are extreme and inappropriate to use. The total sample of this study was 189 respondents or 95% of the total respondents.
3.2. Model Development
Responsiveness is the ability to co-opt customers in exploration and exploitation of innovation opportunities (Sambamurthy et al., 2003). The indicator of responsiveness are detecting new opportunities and threats from the external environment, prioritizing customer satisfaction and customer retention, prioritizing quality, flexibility of sales and product / service systems, always competing product prices with competitors.
Operational Flexibility is the ability to accomplish speed, accuracy, and cost economy in the exploitation of innovation opportunities (Sambamurthy et al., 2003). The indicators of operational flexibility are creating new opportunities in organizations, executing and measuring new capabilities to influence the external environment, making impartial decisions about strategy, business models and capability transformation, optimizing human resource planning and improving efficiency.
Business relationship is the ability to leverage assets, knowledge, and competencies of suppliers, distributors, contract manufacturers and logistics providers in the exploration and exploitation of innovation opportunities (Sambamurthy et al., 2003). The indicator of business relationship is to implement strategies, business models, and new capabilities effectively, develop forms of electronic processing methods, share knowledge; communication channel, updating and changing business models in a timely manner. The indicator sustainable competitive advantage refers (Barney, 1991) includes: have uniqueness product, durability, and have strategic assets different from competitors.
7th AICIF UNIDA Gontor Indonesia, 3rd & 4th December 2019 | 13 3.3. Method
This research involves several concepts (constructs) that have been put forward in the design of hypotheses. These concepts exist that serve as exogenous variables such as responsiveness, operational flexibility and business relationship.
For endogenous variables consisting of sustainable competitive advantage. Each construct is measured by multiple indicator of the research question (10-Likert scale item) adjusted to field conditions and references to several journal studies.
Data collection techniques used in this study is a type of purposive sampling method.
IV. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS 4.1. Results
The empirical model test is using Structural Equation Modeling. The model indicates that Chi-square= 60.211 with probability value of 0.111; GFI=0.950, AGFI=0.918, TLI=0.975, RMSEA=0.037. Based on this value, the result of the model is a fit. Based on statistically analysis the results of this study, it indicates conformity with the required standard values. The result of the Full Model Analysis is shown on Figure 3.
Source: Results of Primary data processing
Figure 3 Full Model Analysis
7th AICIF UNIDA Gontor Indonesia, 3rd & 4th December 2019 | 14 Table 3 shows that hypothesis of responsiveness, operational flexibility and business relationship significantly affect sustainable competitive advantage.
Table 3 Hypothesis Test
Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label
SCA <--- RPS ,314 ,085 3,709 *** par_1
SCA <--- FOP ,447 ,119 3,767 *** par_2
SCA <--- BRP ,149 ,068 2,170 ,030 par_11
Source: Results of Primary data processing
4.2. Robustness Test
Table 4
AMOS Output of Full Model Structural
Item Result Cut off value Explanation
Evaluation of Data Normality
the largest CR number of the univariate variable 2,166
< 2.58 Univariate data distribution is normal
Evaluation of Data Normality
4,587 < 2.58
Multivariate data distribution is not normal
According to Kline (2011), the condition of multivariate data distribution is not normal can be accepted with a condition that the univariate data distribution is normal.
Mahala Nobis Distance Test
31,208 chi-square
value D2 (12,0.001)
<32,909
No cases or answers of respondents who are multivariate outliers.
Chi-Square
(df=48) 60,211 < 84,037 Good
Probability 0.111 > 0,05 Good
RMSEA 0.037 < 0,08 Good
GFI 0.950 > 0,90 Good
AGFI 0.918 > 0,90 Good
CMIN/DF 1.254 < 2,00 Good
TLI 0.975 > 0,95 Good
CFI 0.982 > 0,95 Good
Source: Results of Primary data processing
7th AICIF UNIDA Gontor Indonesia, 3rd & 4th December 2019 | 15 4.3. Analysis
Responsiveness significantly affect sustainable competitive advantage.
This means that detecting new opportunities and threats from the external environment, prioritizing customer satisfaction and customer retention, prioritizing quality, flexibility of sales and product / service systems, always competing product prices with competitors can directly improve Sharia Banks to have uniqueness product, durability, and have strategic assets different from competitors. The result of this study support the previous research which stated that speed decisions significantly affect sales growth and profitability (Judge &
Miller, 1991). The result of this study also supports the previous research which stated that agility has a positive and significant influence on company performance (ROA, net margin, and operating income / assets) and agility has a stronger influence on the performance of companies in volatile conditions relative to a stable environment (Tallon & Pinsonneault, 2011b). The results of this study also in line with the previous research conducted by Conboy (2009), Sull (2010), Doz & Kosonen (2010), Lee et al. (2015) and Cai et al. (2017).
Operational flexibility significantly affects organizational agility. This means that creating new opportunities in organizations, executing and measuring new capabilities to influence the external environment, making impartial decisions about strategy, business models and capability transformation, optimizing human resource planning and improving efficiency can directly improve Sharia Banks to have uniqueness product, durability, and have strategic assets different from competitors. The result of this study also supports the previous research which stated that strategic flexibility positively influences company performance in times of crisis (Grewal & Tansuhaj, 2001), increased competitiveness gained through strategic flexibility (Young-Ybarra & Wiersema, 1999), strategic flexibility is positively related to company performance (Worren et al., 2002), strategic flexibility fulfills one of the requirements for the process of developing customer knowledge, and developing customer knowledge related to the performance of new products (Joshi & Sharma, 2004), strategic flexibility results in competitive advantage in turbulent environments (Hayes, Robert H., 2000), strategic flexibility has a significant positive effect on company performance in a high-speed environment (Nadkarni & Narayanan, 2007), increased competitiveness and competitive advantage due to higher flexibility (including the speed at which flexibility can be used) in responding in dynamic markets (Santos-Vijande, López- Sánchez, & Trespalacios, 2012), a large number of meta routines improve performance and efficiency (Adler et al., 1999). The result of this study also
7th AICIF UNIDA Gontor Indonesia, 3rd & 4th December 2019 | 16 support the previous research conducted by Ivory & Brooks (2018) which states that the specific organizational practices and processes associated with the application of strategic agility can manage corporate sustainability with a paradoxical lens. This finding also support the assertion that agility will be able to improve market performance when decision makers have market skills, experience, learning orientation (Nemkova, 2017).
Business relationship significantly affect sustainable competitive advantage. This means that implement strategies, business models, and new capabilities effectively, develop forms of electronic processing methods, share knowledge; communication channel, updating and changing business models in a timely manner can directly affect improve Sharia Banks to have uniqueness product, durability, and have strategic assets different from competitors. The result of this study support the previous research conducted by Kotter (2014) which states that the key to sustained competitive advantage is the ability to manage and reassemble, rapidly and decisively, complex networks of resources and relationships. The result of this study also support the previous research conducted by Bahri-Ammari & Bilgihan (2017) which states that sharing of customers, facilities and marketing programs with other business units to increase profit margins in order to achieve greater efficiency. The result of this study also supports the previous research conducted by Conboy (2009), Sarker & Sarker (2009), Doz & Kosonen (2010) and S.Y. Teoh & Cai (2015).
V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 5.1. Conclusion
The result shows the importance of responsiveness, operational flexibility and business relationships to improve sustainable competitive advantage of the Sharia Banks in Indonesia. Responsiveness, operational flexibility and business relationships has the confidence and value that puts customers on every business decision. It encourages the Sharia Banks to improve the sustainable competitive advantage based on the responsiveness, operational flexibility and business relationships. Responsiveness, operational flexibility and business relationships are essential to enhance sustainable competitive advantage.
In managerial implication, sustainable competitive advantage of the Sharia Banks can be improved through responsiveness, operational flexibility and business relationships. Responsiveness, operational flexibility and business relationships in marketing policy can be done by detecting new opportunities and
7th AICIF UNIDA Gontor Indonesia, 3rd & 4th December 2019 | 17 threats from the external environment; prioritizing customer satisfaction and customer retention; prioritizing quality; flexibility of sales and product / service systems; always competing product prices with competitors; creating new opportunities in organizations; executing and measuring new capabilities to influence the external environment; making impartial decisions about strategy, business models and capability transformation; optimizing human resource planning; improving efficiency; implementing strategies, business models, and new capabilities effectively; develop forms of electronic processing methods to share knowledge; communication channel; updating and changing business models in a timely manner. Improving responsiveness, operational flexibility and business relationships can gain sustainable competitive advantage.
The theoretical implication of this research is that the sustainable competitive advantage of Sharia Banks can be improved by developing responsiveness, operational flexibility and business relationships simultaneously.
5.2. Recommendation
The finding of this study is expected to contribute in the development of science, especially management science. The limitation of this research focuses only on the Sharia Banks with a relatively small sample size and does not separate the scale of micro, small and medium enterprises. Leaders or managers of Sharia Banks have different abilities in developing their business. They also have different views and behaviors towards the willingness to learn and understand market changes. This is interesting area to another research with different respondents or variables. Future research also can be applied to the business sector with a larger scale and wider geographical area.
REFERENCES
Adler, P. S., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. I. (1999). Flexibility Versus Efficiency? A Case Study of Model Changeovers in the Toyota Production System.
Organization Science, 10(1), 43–68. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.1.43
Alberts, D. S., Hayes, R. E., & Stenbit, J. (2013). Information Age Transformation Series Power to the Edge Command and Control in the Information Age. Retrieved from www.dodccrp.org
Arteta, B. M., & Giachetti, R. (2004). A measure of agility as the complexity of the enterprise system. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 20, 495–
503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2004.05.008
7th AICIF UNIDA Gontor Indonesia, 3rd & 4th December 2019 | 18 Bahrami, M. A., Kiani, M. M., Montazeralfaraj, R., Zadeh, H. F., & 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.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phrp.2016.04.007
Bahri-Ammari, N., & Bilgihan, A. (2017). The effects of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice on customer retention: An empirical investigation in the mobile telecom industry in Tunisia. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 37(March), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.02.012 Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal
of Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108 Bottani, E. (2010). Profile and enablers of agile companies: An empirical
investigation. International Journal of Production Economics, 125(2), 251–261.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.02.016
Bradley, R. V, Pratt, R. M. E., Byrd, T. A., Outlay, C. N., & Wynn, D. E. (2012).
Enterprise architecture, IT effectiveness and the mediating role of IT alignment in US hospitals. Information Systems Journal, 22(2), 97–127.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2011.00379.x
Breu, K., Hemingway, C. J., Strathern, M., & Bridger, D. (2002). Workforce Agility:
The New Employee Strategy for the Knowledge Economy. Journal of
Information Technology, 17(1), 21–31.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02683960110132070
Cai, Z., Huang, Q., Liu, H., Davison, R., & Liang, L. (2013). Developing organizational agility through it capability and km capability: The moderating effects of organizational climate. Proceedings - Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, PACIS 2013.
Cai, Z., Liu, H., Huang, Q., & Liang, L. (2017). Developing organizational agility in product innovation: The roles of IT capability, KM capability, and innovative climate. R and D Management, (December).
https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12305
Chakravarty, A., Grewal, R., & Sambamurthy, V. (2013). Information Technology Competencies, Organizational Agility, and Firm Performance: Enabling and Facilitating Roles. Information Systems Research, 24(4), 976–997.
https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2013.0500
Chang, W.-L., Lu, L., Su, H., Lin, T. A., & Chang, K. (2010). The Mediating Effect of Role Stressors on Market Orientation and Organizational Commitment.
Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 38(10), 1431–1440.
https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2010.38.10.1431
Charbonnier-Voirin, A. (2011). The development and partial testing of the
7th AICIF UNIDA Gontor Indonesia, 3rd & 4th December 2019 | 19 psychometric properties of a measurement scale of organizational agility.
M@n@gement, 14(2), 119–156. Retrieved from
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:The+devel opment+and+partial+testing+of+the+psychometric+properties+of+a+mea- +surement+scale+of+organizational+agility+Audrey#0
Chen, Y., Wang, Y., Nevo, S., Jin, J., Wang, L., & Chow, W. S. (2014). IT capability and organizational performance: the roles of business process agility and environmental factors. European Journal of Information Systems, 23(3), 326–342.
https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2013.4
Conboy, K. (2009). Agility from first principles: Reconstructing the concept of agility in information systems development. Information Systems Research, 20(3), 329–354. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1090.0236
Doz, Y. L., & Kosonen, M. (2010). Embedding Strategic Agility: A Leadership Agenda for Accelerating Business Model Renewal. Long Range Planning, 43(2), 370–382. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.006 Eshlaghy, A., Mashayekhi, A. N., Ghatari, A., & Razavian, M. (2010). Applying
Path Analysis Method in Defining Effective Factors in Organization Agility.
International Journal of Production Research, 48, 1765–1786.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540802566410
Fink, L., & Neumann, S. (2018). Gaining Agility through IT Personnel Capabilities:
The Mediating Role of IT Infrastructure Capabilities. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(8), 440–462. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00135 Ganguly, A., Nilchiani, R., & Farr, J. (2009). Evaluating agility in corporate
enterprises. International Journal of Production Economics, 118, 410–423.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2008.12.009
Gehani, R. R. (2002). Evolving Leader-Member Exchange (Lmx) Theory and Market-Oriented Lateral Leaders in Turbulent Global Markets. Marketing Management Journal, 12(2), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.saa.2015.01.113 Grewal, R., & Tansuhaj, P. (2001). Building Organizational Capabilities for
Managing Economic Crisis: The Role of Market Orientation and Strategic Flexibility. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 67–80.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.65.2.67.18259
Hayes, Robert H., and G. P. P. (2000). Beyond World-Class: The New Manufacturing Strategy. Harvard Business Review, 72(1), 77–84.
Holmqvist, M., & Pessi, K. (2006). Agility through scenario development and continuous implementation: a global aftermarket logistics case. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(2), 146–158.
https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000602
7th AICIF UNIDA Gontor Indonesia, 3rd & 4th December 2019 | 20 Holsapple, C. W., & Li, X. (2008). Understanding organizational agility: a work-design
perspective. (937).
Hovorka, D. S., & Larsen, K. R. (2006). Enabling agile adoption practices through network organizations. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(2), 159–168.
https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000606
Huang, P.-Y. Y., Pan, S. L., & Ouyang, T. H. (2014). Developing information processing capability for operational agility: Implications from a Chinese manufacturer. European Journal of Information Systems, 23(4), 462–480.
https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2014.4
Ivory, S. B., & Brooks, S. B. (2018). Managing Corporate Sustainability with a Paradoxical Lens: Lessons from Strategic Agility. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(2), 347–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3583-6
Joseph, S. (2001). Benchmarking for agility. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 8(2), 88–107. https://doi.org/10.1108/14635770110389816
Joshi, A. W., & Sharma, S. (2004). Customer Knowledge Development:
Antecedents and Impact on New Product Performance. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.4.47.42722
Judge, W. Q., & Miller, A. (1991). Antecedents and Outcomes of Decision Speed in Different Environmental Contexts. The Academy of Management Journal, 34(2), 449–463. https://doi.org/10.2307/256451
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling.
https://doi.org/10.1038/156278a0
Kotter, J. P. (2014). Accelerate : Building Strategic Agility for a Faster-Moving World.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.184981
Lavie, D., & Rosenkopf, L. (2006). BALANCING EXPLORATION AND
EXPLOITATION IN.pdf. 49(4), 797–818.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.22083085
Lee, O.-K. (Daniel) (Daniel) K., Sambamurthy, V., Lim, K. H., & Wei, K. K. (2015).
How Does IT Ambidexterity Impact Organizational Agility? Information Systems Research, 26(2), 398–417. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2015.0577 Lowry, P. B., & Wilson, D. (2016). Creating agile organizations through IT: The
influence of internal IT service perceptions on IT service quality and IT agility.
The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 25(3), 211–226.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2016.05.002
Lu, Y., & Ramamurthy, K. (Ram). (2011). Understanding the Link Between Information Technology Capability and Organizational Agility: An Empirical Examination. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 931–954.
https://doi.org/10.2307/41409967
7th AICIF UNIDA Gontor Indonesia, 3rd & 4th December 2019 | 21 Nadkarni, S., & Narayanan, V. K. (2007). Strategic schemas, strategic flexibility, and firm performance: the moderating role of industry clockspeed. Strategic Management Journal, 28(3), 243–270. Retrieved from https://e- resources.perpusnas.go.id:2057/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/logi n.aspx?direct=true&db=bsx&AN=23866487&site=eds-live
Najafi-Tavani, S., Sharifi, H., & Najafi-Tavani, Z. (2016). Market orientation, marketing capability, and new product performance: The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 5059–5064.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.080
Narasimhan, R., & Das, A. (1999). An Empirical Investigation of the Contribution of Strategic Sourcing to Manufacturing Flexibilities and Performance*.
Decision Sciences, 30(3), 683–718. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540- 5915.1999.tb00903.x
Nazir, S., & Pinsonneault, A. (2012). Journal of the Association for Information IT and Firm Agility : An Electronic Integration Perspective IT and Firm Agility : An Electronic Integration. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13(3), 150–171.
Nemkova, E. (2017). The impact of agility on the market performance of born- global firms: An exploratory study of the ‘Tech City’ innovation cluster.
Journal of Business Research, 80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.04.017 Ngai, E. W. T., Chau, D. C. K., & Chan, T. L. A. (2011). Information technology,
operational, and management competencies for supply chain agility:
Findings from case studies. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 20(3), 232–249. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2010.11.002
Overby, E., Bharadwaj, A., & Sambamurthy, V. (2006). Enterprise agility and the enabling role of information technology. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(2), 120–131. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000600
Park, Y., Sawy, O., & Fiss, P. (2017). The Role of Business Intelligence and Communication Technologies in Organizational Agility: A Configurational Approach. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 18(9), 648–686.
https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00001
Queiroz, M., Tallon, P. P., Sharma, R., & Coltman, T. (2018). The role of IT application orchestration capability in improving agility and performance.
Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 27(1), 4–21.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2017.10.002
Ravichandran, T. (2018). Exploring the relationships between IT competence, innovation capacity and organizational agility. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 27(1), 22–42. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2017.07.002 Ren, J., Yusuf, Y., & Burns, N. (2008). A decision-support framework for agile
7th AICIF UNIDA Gontor Indonesia, 3rd & 4th December 2019 | 22 enterprise partnering. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 41, 180–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-008-1443-3
Richardson, S., Kettinger, W., Banks, M., & Quintana, Y. (2018). IT and Agility in the Social Enterprise: A Case Study of St Jude Children’s Research Hospital’s
“Cure4Kids” IT-Platform for International Outreach. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 15(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00351 Roberts, N., & Grover, V. (2012). Leveraging Information Technology
Infrastructure to Facilitate a Firm’s Customer Agility and Competitive Activity: An Empirical Investigation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28(4), 231–270. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222280409
Sambamurthy, Bharadwaj, & Grover. (2003). Shaping Agility through Digital Options: Reconceptualizing the Role of Information Technology in Contemporary Firms. MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 237.
https://doi.org/10.2307/30036530
Santos-Vijande, M. L., López-Sánchez, J. Á., & Trespalacios, J. A. (2012). How organizational learning affects a firm’s flexibility, competitive strategy, and performance. Journal of Business Research, 65(8), 1079–1089.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.09.002
Sarker, S. S. S. S. S., & Sarker, S. S. S. S. S. (2009). Exploring agility in distributed information systems development teams: An interpretive study in an offshoring context. Information Systems Research, 20(3), 440–461.
https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1090.0241
Sharma, S. (2013). ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY: WHAT IT IS, WHAT IT IS NOT, AND WHY IT MATTERS.
Sherehiy, B., Karwowski, W., & Layer, J. K. (2007). A review of enterprise agility:
Concepts, frameworks, and attributes. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 37(5), 445–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2007.01.007 Sull, D. (2010). Competing through organizational agility. (cover story). McKinsey
Quarterly, (1), 48–56. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=47918197
&site=ehost-live
Tallon, & Pinsonneault. (2011a). Competing Perspectives on the Link Between Strategic Information Technology Alignment and Organizational Agility:
Insights from a Mediation Model. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 463.
https://doi.org/10.2307/23044052
Tallon, & Pinsonneault. (2011b). Competing Perspectives on the Link Between Strategic Information Technology Alignment and Organizational Agility:
Insights from a Mediation Model. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 463.
https://doi.org/10.2307/23044052
7th AICIF UNIDA Gontor Indonesia, 3rd & 4th December 2019 | 23 Teoh, S. Y., & Cai, S. (2015). The Process of Strategic, Agile, Innovation Development : A Healthcare Systems. Journal of Global Information Management, 23(3), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.4018/JGIM.2015070101
Tiwana, A., & Kim, S. K. (2015). Discriminating IT Governance. Information Systems Research, 26(4), 656–674. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2015.0591
Tiwana, A., Konsynski, B., & Bush, A. A. (2010). Platform evolution: Coevolution of platform architecture, governance, and environmental dynamics.
Information Systems Research, 21(4), 675–687.
https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1100.0323
van Oosterhout, M., Waarts, E., & van Hillegersberg, J. (2006). Change factors requiring agility and implications for IT. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(2), 132–145. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000601
Vervest, P., Preiss, K., van Heck, E., & Pau, L.-F. (2004). The Emergence of Smart Business Networks. Journal of Information Technology, 19(4), 228–233.
https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000024
Worren, N., Moore, K., & Cardona, P. (2002). MODULARITY, STRATEGIC FLEXIBILITY AND FIRM PERFORMANCE: A STUDY OF THE HOME APPLIANCE INDUSTRY. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12), 1123.
Retrieved from http://10.0.3.234/smj.276%0Ahttps://e- resources.perpusnas.go.id:2057/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/logi n.aspx?direct=true&db=bsx&AN=8584405&site=eds-live
Yeung, P. K., & Lau, C. M. (2005). Competitive actions and firm performance of hotels in Hong Kong. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 24(4), 611–633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2005.06.005
Young-Ybarra, C., & Wiersema, M. (1999). Strategic Flexibility in Information Technology Alliances: The Influence of Transaction Cost Economics and Social Exchange Theory. Organization Science, 10(4), 439–459.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.4.439
Yusuf, Y. Y., Sarhadi, M., & Gunasekaran, A. (1999). Agile manufacturing:: The drivers, concepts and attributes. International Journal of Production Economics, 62(1), 33–43. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(98)00219-9 Zhou, S., Qiao, Z., Du, Q., Wang, G. A., Fan, W., & Yan, X. (2018). Measuring
Customer Agility from Online Reviews Using Big Data Text Analytics.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 35(2), 510–539.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2018.1451956
Zitkiene, R., & Deksnys, M. (2018). Organizational Agility Conceptual Model.
Montenegrin Journal of Economics, 14(2), 115–129.
https://doi.org/10.14254/1800-5845/2018.14-2.7
7th AICIF UNIDA Gontor Indonesia, 3rd & 4th December 2019 | 24
