The Service Industries Journal Technological ...

This article was downloaded by: [Edward Ku] On: 21 February 2014, At: 07:17 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Service Industries Journal Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fsij20

Technological competence and team cohesiveness among travel agencies a

Edward C.S. Ku a

Travel Management, National Kaohsiung University of Hospitality and Tourism, 1 Sung-Ho RD, Hsiao-Kang, Kaohsiung 812, Taiwan, Republic of China Published online: 19 Feb 2014.

To cite this article: Edward C.S. Ku , The Service Industries Journal (2014): Technological competence and team cohesiveness among travel agencies, The Service Industries Journal, DOI: 10.1080/02642069.2014.871532 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2014.871532

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

The Service Industries Journal, 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2014.871532

Technological competence and team cohesiveness among travel agencies Edward C.S. Ku

∗

Travel Management, National Kaohsiung University of Hospitality and Tourism, 1 Sung-Ho RD, Hsiao-Kang, Kaohsiung 812, Taiwan, Republic of China

Downloaded by [Edward Ku] at 07:17 21 February 2014

(Received 15 September 2011; accepted 15 August 2012)

From the perspective of collaboration, the independent travel agent has provided it makes appropriate investment in technology and creates competitive advantage. The research goals of this study were to investigate how strategic adaptation among the members of travel agent collaborations affects service performance. Data were obtained via a mailed questionnaire survey of a sample of travel agencies. The model and the hypotheses were tested using a structural equation modeling approach. The findings of this study provide interesting insights for travel agencies interested in service performance. Technological competence has emerged as an important asset in travel agent collaboration, which can be used to increase the productivity of knowledge works through the management of service performance, and different strategies are discussed in terms of different segments of partners within the collaboration.

Keywords: strategic adaptation; collaboration; technological competence; team cohesiveness

1. Introduction Technological competence plays a critical role in the increasingly competitive business environment in which several firms operate (Acur, Kandemir, de Weerd-Nederhof, & Song, 2010; Knudsen, 2005; Shee & Wu, 2008). Travel agencies should devise suitable packages for customers and knowledge is a prerequisite for collaboration and their associated information systems to have an increasingly customer-centric focus (Ku & Fan, 2009); from the resources-based perspective, the partner’s consideration of a preferred collaboration is based not only on price or cost, but also on factors that contribute more to the collaborator’s competence in production, distribution, and post-purchase service. *

Email: [email protected]

# 2014 Taylor & Francis


2

E.C.S. Ku

Collaboration among travel agencies has to exhibit a good knowledge on markets, customers, products and services, methods and processes, competitors, employee skills, and the regulatory environment of information systems (Ku & Fan, 2009; Richey, Tokman, & Dalela, 2010). Previous researchers argue that technological competence, such as engineering and process know-how, strategic thinking concerning the state of the market and positioning of the product, and product innovation, must be linked with the knowledge about the customer (Banker, Chang, & Kao, 2010; Davis & Golicic, 2010; De Carolis, 2003; Luo, Mallick, & Schroeder, 2010). However, few researchers report if any improvement in service performance could be perceived as a result of collaboration or team cohesiveness. A travel agency is a customer-focused organization that customers should perceive as genuinely caring about them; customer-focused travel agents provide the promised services and continue to place customers’ requests and interests ahead of their own. Many studies address the strategic significance of unique technological competence in travel agency firms (Andreu, Alda´s, Bigne´, & Mattila, 2010; Buhalis & Licata, 2002; Ku & Fan, 2009). Travel agencies that seek to improve their service performance increasingly engage in collaborative product development with their suppliers (Martıńez-Sańchez, Vela-Jimeńez, Pe´rez-Pe´rez, & de-Luis-Carnicer, 2009). In today’s highly competitive environment, understanding how collaboration affects service performance in team cohesiveness and technological competence continues, and it will be an important issue to explain which travel agencies provide customers with the knowledge about the tourist products and services that they distribute. Thus, this study aims at elucidating how technological competence and team cohesiveness affect perceived service performance via collaboration. From the resources-based perspective, team cohesiveness has been shown in numerous studies to have positive impact on performance in the workplace (Al-Rawi, 2008; Harrison, Price, Gavin, & Florey, 2002). Travel agencies have become increasingly dependent on teams to carry out their products’ knowledge; they are shifting their focus from increasing the internal efficiency to leveraging external resources (Cross, Ehrlich, Dawson, & Helferich, 2008; Huang, 2008) in a bid to gain new competitive advantages. The integration of customer needs is viewed as a means to renew the overall competence of the organization. Effective teams rely on knowledge sharing and group cohesiveness to achieve better performance. Previous research shows that cohesiveness has positive effect on the exchange of advice between team members and on openness for sharing opinions (Graf, 2007; Woerkom & Sanders, 2010). Further, team cohesiveness affects mentoring relationships and resulting benefits (Cross et al., 2008; Harrison et al., 2002). Partners in collaboration should pay more attention to operational issues, such as collaboration eves, to achieve successful cooperative relationships. The objective of this study has been to investigate how strategic collaboration among travel agencies, in terms of technological competence and team cohesiveness, affects perceived service performance. Data were obtained via questionnaire survey of some travel agencies in Taiwan. The model and the hypotheses were tested using a structural equation modeling approach. Section 2 describes the theoretical background of this study and provides a review of previous research in the field and also presents the research model, Section 3 the research methodology, Section 4 the research findings, and Section 5 the conclusions of this study.

The Service Industries Journal 2.


2.1.

3

Theoretical background and literature review Resource-based theory and collaborations among travel agencies

Resource-based theory is used since long to find the conditions under which firms can gain and sustain a competitive advantage (Ahn & Park, 2004; Richey et al., 2010). From that perspective, core competency is the collective learning of an organization, especially which related to coordinating diverse production skills and integrating multiple technology streams (Allred, Fawcett, Wallin, & Magnan, 2011). A firm’s capability for internal coordination is a strategic resource that can be leveraged to gain competitive advantage through an effort that involves suppliers. Evidence suggests that partners in a collaborative relationship have both common and individual corporate goals (Davis & Golicic, 2010; Dobrzykowski, Tran, & Tarafdar, 2010; Luo et al., 2010). Travel agents will continue to play a significant role in all regions for decades, but they need to move away from being mere ticket bookers to providing value-added services to customers (Andreu et al., 2010; Chiu, Yueh, Leung, & Hung, 2009). From the perspective of the resource-based theory, as networks facilitate collaborating ability, this integration makes it possible for a firm to acquire knowledge from customers as well as directly from a partner. From the resource-based perspective, technological competence is viewed as an important resource for a firm. In their collaboration for the introduction and spreading of Global Distribution System and Central Reservation System, and World Wide Web, the travel agencies gained the main communication ground through the application of information and communications technology (Hui & Wan, 2005; Wang & Cheung, 2004). Similarly, it enables the customers in communicating their travel information, for example, in selecting the accommodation which forms part of the specific package according to the web site. In a collaborative relationship, team cohesiveness is viewed as an important prerequisite to team performance (Cross et al., 2008; Matthyssens & Vandenbempt, 2010). Team leaders can develop different levels of congruence in terms of their perceptions of, and their commitment to, strategic vision and goals (Al-Rawi, 2008), and team cohesiveness is related to performance. In strategic collaborations, travel agencies need to consider many elements in selecting the appropriate strategy. As depicted in Figure 1, the research model followed here takes

Figure 1. Research model.

4

E.C.S. Ku


the collaborating participants’ view with strategic adaptation, based on the technological competence of an organization and its strategic adaptation. 2.2. Technological competence Technological competence refers to firm’s ability to generate and assimilate knowledge, and to transform and exploit the acquired knowledge (Zahra & George, 2002). In other words, a technologically competent company, by understanding, using, and exploiting relevant state-of-the-art information technology and communication capabilities (Lokshin, Van Gils, & Bauer, 2009; Richey et al., 2010; Scott, Haozhe, & Patricia, 2009), can enhance its ability to integrate the supply chain. Technological development within a firm can be influenced to a great extent by the firm’s ability to innovate and externally source. A company needs technological competence to add value to products and processes (De Luca & Atuahene-Gima, 2007; Lages, Silva, & Styles, 2009). On the other hand, a company needs network competence to link it to other players in the market for the interaction beyond organizational boundaries. Between the two, technological competence is increasingly considered crucial to maintain long-term competitive advantage. 2.3.

Strategic adaptation

For an organization, strategic adaptation refers to optimizing its strategic behavior when encountering environmental disruptions (Hui & Wan, 2005; Ray, 2003; Strandholm, Kumar, & Subramanian, 2004). This study examines the within-industry differences in strategic adaptive responses of organizations in terms of two commonly accepted postures of strategic adaptation (Kumar, Subramanian, & Strandholm, 2002; Strandholm et al., 2004): efficiency and market focus. Technological competence, especially strategic thinking, concerns understanding of the markets and positioning the product. For example, travel agents can create an appropriate knowledge-sharing strategy by information systems. They can survive if they focus on specialized services (Kanagal, 2009; Kumar et al., 2002), such as travel consultation, or specific segments of the market, such as business travelers. Likewise, there is a need for the managers to understand the entire innovation process and know-how to create a market-oriented or cost-efficient organization through technological competence (Camille, Je’Anna, & Stowe, 2005; Çetindamar & Laage-Hellman, 2003). This leads the authors to the following hypotheses: H1a: Technological competence is positively associated with market-focused strategy adaptation among collaborating partners. H1b: Technological competence is positively associated with efficiency-focused strategy adaptation among collaborating partners.

2.4. Teamwork cohesiveness Teamwork cohesiveness is defined as a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to common purposes, performance goals, and approaches to which they hold themselves mutually accountable (Al-Rawi, 2008; Graf, 2007). It can be achieved from both network ties and collective mind. And, teamwork cohesion promotes organizational learning, which, in turn, encourages technical and administrative innovation (Cross et al., 2008).

The Service Industries Journal

5


When competition becomes tougher, organizational capability and management cohesiveness become strategic thrusts of enterprises (Lokshin et al., 2009). Moreover, conflict among top team members may, in turn, lead a firm to be more defensive and ethnocentric in its strategic actions (Cross et al., 2008; Gebauer, Fischer, & Fleisch, 2010). Cohesiveness among groups that favor different sides of an issue was examined to determine its effect on attitude polarization (Harrison et al., 2002; Woerkom & Sanders, 2010). Cohesiveness can result in greater polarization, thereby impeding the successful implementation of the strategic plan. Strategic adaptation is shaped by the need to collaborate organizational resources with environmental opportunities and threats (Kumar et al., 2002; Richey et al., 2010; Strandholm et al., 2004). A travel agency is a customer-focused organization that customers should perceive as genuinely caring about them (Fan & Ku, 2010). That is, if travel agencies believe that market-focused strategies are important, they may consider quality, delivery, and design strategies essential to such strategies. This leads the authors to the following hypothesis: H2a: Teamwork cohesiveness is positively associated with market-focused strategy adaptation among collaborating partners.

On the other hand, organizations, which perceive the level of environmental change as rather low, would pursue an efficiency-focused strategy that emphasizes cost control (Kumar et al., 2002; Lukas, 1999). The cost of adapting to an uncertain environment is less likely to be recouped in a stable environment where product and service offerings, as well as the method of doing business, do not require change (Strandholm et al., 2004). A number of strategies favored by large travel agencies, such as aggressive differentiation of offers, establishment of closer relationships with preferred suppliers, and de-emphasis of unattractive services or markets, are not considered effective by small agencies (Dilts & Prough, 1989). Conversely, small agencies attribute greater effectiveness, than do the large agencies, to engaging in joint political action with trade associations for creating a more favorable business climate. For travel agencies collaborating, which believe that efficiency-focused strategies are important, strategic vision (in the terms’ mind) and design strategies will be considered essential. This leads to the following hypothesis: H2b: Teamwork cohesiveness is positively associated with efficiency-focused strategy adaptation among collaborating partners.

2.5.

Perceived service performance

Perceived service performance is defined as freedom from deficiencies, or service reliability in meeting customer specifications (Johnson & Ettlie, 2001). Perceived service performance should be an important construct in supplier management, because it is a measure of how effectively it can make purchasing satisfying for its customers (Fredendall, Hopkins, & Bhonsle, 2005). A firm’s strategic orientation affects service innovation capability, and consequently the impact on its performance. Strategic type is another important determinant of innovative culture (MartıńezSańchez et al., 2009). Market-oriented firms perceive competitive intensity as more sophisticated and dynamic than do the firms which are not as market oriented (Kumar et al., 2002). Market-focused strategic flexibility, strategic competitive advantage, subjective and objective performance outcomes as applied to service providers, and marketfocused and price-based strategies have contrasting effects on performance. Collaborative orientation significantly affects collaborative network performance, which in turn enhances service performance (Davis & Golicic, 2010; Dobrzykowski

6

E.C.S. Ku

et al., 2010; Kandemir, Yaprak, & Cavusgil, 2006; Stank, Keller, & Daugherty, 2001). Collaboration among travel agents is based on market and service strategies (Huang, 2008), such as those between wholesaler and tour operator direct sales; if a service travel agent’s objective is to create a superior value proposition for his/her customer base, and therefore a sustainable competitive advantage (Fan & Ku, 2010; Hui & Wan, 2005), an advanced conceptualization of strategic flexibility should incorporate a market-focused perspective and directly consider a firm’s options with regard to services and markets. Thus, this leads to the following hypotheses:


H3: Market-focused strategy adaptation among collaborating partners is positively associated with perceived service performance. H4: Efficiency-focused strategy adaptation among collaborating partners is positively associated with perceived service performance.

3. 3.1.

Research methodology Survey administration

The research questionnaires were mailed to the managers of travel agencies wherever they could be identified; where ‘managers’ did not exist officially, questionnaires were mailed directly to the travel agencies, which were asked to pass them on to the persons with the knowledge of their collaborating travel agencies who would then distribute them (one questionnaire per company). The questionnaires were sent to 150 travel agents randomly selected from 2677 travel agents identified from the Tourism Bureau of Transportation and Communication. Each travel agent passed on six questionnaires to the persons with the knowledge of their collaborating agents. In total, 900 questionnaires were mailed to participants in Taiwan, from which 564 usable responses of fully completed questionnaires were received. Table 1 shows that about half of the respondents were smaller firms with assets less than NT$15 million and employees fewer than 70. As all the subjects were travel agencies,

Table 1. Sample description (N = 564).

Classified of travel agent Wholesaler Tour operator direct sales Retail travel agent Total revenue per year (NT$) Less than 2 million 2–15 million 15– 60 million 60– 100 million Over 100 million Number of employees Less than 30 31– 70 71– 120 Over 120

Number of travel agents

Percentage of firms

145 401 18

25.7 71.1 3.2

87 209 127 61 90

15.5 35.8 21.3 9.5 14.9

175 129 68 192

30.9 22.7 11.9 33.9


7

it was checked if there was nonresponse bias in terms of firm size. First, the responding and nonresponding firms were compared in terms of company assets and number of employees. Independent sample t-tests (p . .05) revealed no significant differences between the two groups. Similarly, comparisons in terms of the three types of measures also showed no significant differences.


3.2.

Measurement development

The constructs of the study were measured with a multi-item scale by assigning numbers to different opinions (1: strongly disagree; 2: disagree to some extent; 3: uncertain; 4: agree to some extent; 5: strongly agree), as given in Table 2. Technological competence and teamwork cohesiveness were developed by modifying the scale of Lokshin et al. (2009) to suit the teamwork cohesiveness context of travel agencies. Strategic adaptation was derived directly from relevant descriptions of Strandholm et al. (2004) to understand the extent to which the organization emphasizes efficiency or market-focused strategies. Perceived service performance used here was adapted from the concept of perceived service performance of Stank et al. (2001). 4.

Analysis and results

4.1. Tests of the measuring scales The internal consistency reliability was assessed by calculating Cronbach’s alpha values, and the results are summarized in Table 3. The internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of the construct is greater than 0.9, which is above the acceptable threshold. The confirmatory factor analysis given in Table 4 was used with LISREL 8.50 software to examine the convergent validity of each construct (Kim & Malhotra, 2005). The range for factor loadings was 0.62 – 0.82. 4.2.

Measurement model

This study assessed construct reliability by calculating composite reliability (Segars, 1997). These estimates of composite reliability of latent factors range from 0.78 to 0.87, which are all well above the threshold of 0.70, as suggested by Jo¨reskog and So¨rbom (1982). Thus, acceptable construct reliability is implied; as given in Table 5, results also show that the square roots of all AVE estimates for each construct are greater than the interconstruct correlations; thus, discriminant validity is supported. 4.3.

Test of the structural model

LISREL 8.50 software was used for this analysis. Structural equation modeling was performed to test the hypothesized model illustrated in Figure 1. The overall goodness of fit was assessed in terms of the following eight common model fit measures: GFI, 0.90; AGFI, 0.91; RMR, 0.05; RMSEA, 0.057; NFI, 0.92; CFI, 0.94, PNFI, 0.76; and PGFI, 0.67. Thus, overall, the data indicate a favorable fit for the authors’ hypothesized model. As presented in Table 6, the results of this hypothesized full model indicate a favorable fit of the model. The significance and relative strength of individual links specified by the research model were also evaluated. The results provide meaningful support for the research hypotheses, six of which are fully supported (Figure 2).

8

E.C.S. Ku

Table 2. Scale development. Factor

Item

Reference


Technological competence (TC) TC1 My company acts as a special agent for airline tickets Lokshin et al. TC2 My company acts as a special agent for hotel products (2009) TC3 A department within our company monitors on a regular basis our product area outside our company to find out whether our technology is up to date TC4 There are technologies which can be used in my company always tries to acquire them TC5 The technical process including the involved employees and the process outcome within my company is monitored on a regular basis by a special department Team cohesiveness (TeC) TeC1 My company possesses team of product innovations Lokshin et al. TeC2 The team works autonomous with a liaison-person who directs the (2009) team in line with the overall organizational strategy Slack time TeC3 Employees in my company have some time on their own disposal in which they can choose themselves on what they work (e.g. they discuss ideas, or are creative) TeC4 The team manager is strongly involved in the individual’s performance evaluation Market-focused strategies (MFS) MFS1 We think innovative services are important MFS2 We make efforts for flexible operations MFS3 We think innovative marketing of services is important MFS4 We make efforts to become more market focused Efficiency-focused strategies (EFS) EFS1 We think controlling operational expenses is important EFS2 We make price-based competition for operations EFS3 We think that enhanced efficiency is important EFS4 We make efforts to become more efficiency focused

Strandholm et al. (2004)

Strandholm et al. (2004)

Perceived service performance (PSP) PSP1 We have the ability to reduce the time between order receipt and Stank et al.(2001) customer delivery to as close to zero as possible PSP2 We have the ability to respond to the needs and wants of customers PSP3 We have the ability to provide desired quantities on a consistent basis PSP4 We have the ability to modify order size, volume, or composition of travel products during logistics operation PSP5 We have the ability to provide flexible travel products for specific customers

The positive association of technological competence with market-focused strategy adaptation among collaborating partners was supported by this analysis (coefficients = 0.31, t = 6.36, p , .05). The importance of technological competence for collaborative work has already been established by several workers (Kodama, 2005b). Travel agents face an increasingly competitive market, and technological competence will continue to play a significant role in this context.


9


Table 3. Reliability. Item

Mean

STD

Cronbach’s alpha after deleted

TC1 TC2 TC3 TC4 TC5 TeC1 TeC2 TeC3 TeC4 MFS1 MFS2 MFS3 MFS4 EFS1 EFS2 EFS3 EFS4 PSP1 PSP2 PSP3 PSP4 PSP5

4.06 3.98 4.21 3.93 3.95 3.71 3.96 4.13 4.06 4.09 3.78 3.74 3.96 4.09 3.98 3.64 3.72 4.02 3.88 4.13 3.73 3.98

.802 .819 .729 .822 .873 .873 .935 .812 .883 .758 .855 .833 .805 .718 .853 .843 .801 .807 .853 .825 .815 .890

.914 .912 .913 .911 .911 .914 .911 .912 .911 .915 .914 .909 .914 .912 .914 .909 .914 .913 .911 .912 .914 .911

This study does not support the existence of any positive association between technological competence and efficiency-focused strategy adaptation among collaborating partners (coefficients = 0.23, t = 1.49, p , .05). A travel agent will enhance efficiency and control operational expenses, but the results of technological competence do not influence efficiency-focused strategy adaptation among collaborating partners. The strategies among collaborating partners who value technological competence as the primary work goal are different. H2a, which postulates a positive association between teamwork cohesiveness and market-focused strategy adaptation, was supported in this analysis (coefficients = 0.67, t = 10.79, p , .05). Teamwork cohesiveness of a travel agent affects market-focused strategy adaptation and the resulting impact on service performance. Obviously, teamwork cohesiveness plays an important role in improving their service performance. The positive association between teamwork cohesiveness and efficiency-focused strategy adaptation among collaborating partners was supported in this analysis (coefficients = 0.59, t = 10.22, p , .05). When travel agencies believe that efficiency-focused strategies are important, they consider the strategic vision in the terms’ mind, and that efficiencyfocused strategy is a concern in collaboration. The existence of positive association between market-focused strategy adaptation among collaborating partners and perceived service performance was supported in this study (coefficients = 0.65, t = 10.70, p , .05). As Strandholm et al. (2004) point out, a service travel agent’s objective is to create a superior proposition for its customer base, and thereby a sustainable competitive advantage. That is, as travel agencies create a strategy adaptation situation in which members of the collaboration are motivated to be service oriented, they increase service performance.

10

E.C.S. Ku

Table 4. Confirmatory factor analysis.


Variables Constructs

TC

My company acts as a special agent for airline tickets My company acts as a special agent for hotel products A department within our company monitors on a regular basis our product area outside our company to find out whether our technology is up to date There are technologies which can be used in my company always tries to acquire them The technical process including the involved employees and the process outcome within my company is monitored on a regular basis by a special department My company possesses team of product innovations The team works autonomous with a liaison-person who directs the team in line with the overall organizational strategy Slack time Employees in my company have some time on their own disposal in which they can choose themselves on what they work (e.g. they discuss ideas, or are creative) The team manager is strongly involved in the individual’s performance evaluation We think innovative services are important We make efforts for flexible operations We think innovative marketing of services is important We make efforts to become more market focused We think controlling operational expenses is important We make price-based competition for operations We think that enhanced efficiency is important We make efforts to become more efficiency focused We have the ability to reduce the time between order receipt and customer delivery to as close to zero as possible We have the ability to respond to the needs and wants of customers We have the ability to provide desired quantities on a consistent basis. We have the ability to modify order size, volume or composition of travel products during logistics operation We have the ability to provide flexible travel products for specific customers

0.74 0.77 0.71

TeC

MFS EFS

PSP

0.78 0.72 0.65 0.60 0.79 0.83 0.73 0.66 0.74 0.68 0.73 0.72 0.85 0.83 0.75 0.71 0.77 0.79 0.72

Table 5. Measurement model estimation. Item

TC

TeC

TC TeC EFS MFS PSP

0.87 0.621 0.512 0.647 0.616

0.78 0.427 0.664 0.621

MFS

0.86 0.701 0.560

EFS

AVE

0.79 0.732

0.76 0.62 0.75 0.63 0.59

Notes: The main diagonal shows the square root of the AVE. Significance at p , .05 level is shown in bold.


11

Table 6. Hypothesis and results. Hypothesis


H1a Technological competence -.Market-focused strategies H1b Technological competence -. Efficiency-focused strategies H2a Teamwork cohesiveness -. Market-focused strategies H2b Teamwork cohesiveness -. Efficiency-focused strategies H3 Market-focused strategies -. Perceived service performance H4 Efficiency-focused strategies -. Perceived service performance

coefficients

tValue

0.31

6.36*

Supported

0.23

1.49

Not supported

0.67

10.79*

Supported

0.59

10.22*

Supported

0.65

10.70*

Supported

0.08

0.30

Results

Not supported

*p , .05.

Figure 2. Hypothesis and testing.

This analysis does not support the existence of positive association between efficiencyfocused strategy adaptation and perceived service performance (coefficients = 0.08, t = 0.30, p , .05). The analysis indicates that the perceived service performance of travel agents is not affected by their efficiency-focused strategy. There may be differences in terms of strategic goal, such as market strategy or efficiency-focused strategy. Thus, there was no significant interaction between efficiency-focused strategy and perceived service performance. 5.

Conclusions and implications

Travel agencies have to identify their collaborating strategy; competitive affecting the travel industry, include changing customer demands, and increasingly possesses a team of product innovations in a collaboration relationship, the commodity-like nature of the products offered by travel agencies collaboration which many travel products can be


12

E.C.S. Ku

described have led to be concerned about the effects of technological competence of travel agencies. Technological competence has emerged as an important asset in travel agent collaboration, which can be used to increase the productivity of knowledge works through the management of product and service innovation. Focusing attention on travel agencies and their collaborating partners, the authors of this study utilized a multidimensional measure of factors that influence strategic collaboration, which is intuitively appealing and reliable. The analysis of the measurement model indicates that the proposed metrics have an acceptable degree of validity and reliability. The use of the structural equation model to test the theoretical model of collaboration relationship could lead to a better understanding of the nature and determinants of choice and decisions related to cooperation between organizations. Overall, the results of the study provide reliable instruments for operationalizing the key effect constructs in the analysis of market performance. They also offer some important implications for market performance in collaborations. First, technological competence gains a travel agency’s ability to develop and operate more effectively, and it is seen as the sum of a firm’s knowledge and skills, which determine the ability of technology-based ventures in offering products and services, and gaining market acceptance. The results of this study suggest that, in collaboration relationship, a travel agent will create the specific internal technological competences and lead a unique service strategy. The importance of technological competence for collaborative work has already been established by several workers (Kodama, 2005a). Travel agents face an increasingly competitive market, and technological competence will continue to play a significant role in this context. For example, travel agencies target different levels of customers; given their competence, the customers are treated as ideal opportunities to serve and as the reason for the firm’s existence. Through technological competence, travel agencies can develop unique traveling plans and serve the needs of the customers. Second, knowledge translation capability acts across the travel agencies, especially in relation to technological innovation, and facilitates the development of technological competence. For a firm, knowledge can already exist in the organization or it can be sourced externally by the organization. In developing an innovation, this knowledge is modified or re-configured in some way. Likewise, knowledge translation capability is therefore an example of dynamic capability and is strategically important for a travel agent. That is, strategic adaptation is important to the survival of a travel agent, as organizations develop enduring patterns of strategic behavior that co-align. For example, wholesalers can develop e-commerce strategies by connecting the relationship between retailer travel agencies, and they will create competitive differentiation by focusing on specialist markets. Third, for travel agencies, it is important to possess a team of product innovations in a collaboration relationship, and team leaders of travel agencies in such relationship can develop their commitment to strategic vision and goals. The results of this study indicate that team cohesiveness significantly influences strategic adaptation, which, in turn, affects service performance in collaboration relationship. Considering the high mean values for the proximity of team members, strategic goal-setting, and team cohesiveness positively predict service performance. That is, it is necessary to encourage organizations not only to acquire stronger technological competence, but also to have work environments characterized by teamwork cohesion, because these are some of the main routes that bring improvements in service performance of travel agencies. Additionally, employees in the



13

team have some time at their disposal, which they can spend on what they choose to work, and the team leader is strongly involved in the evaluation of individual’s performance. Fourth, strategic adaptation will significantly affect service performance for travel agency collaboration. A travel agent will enhance efficiency and control operational expenses, but the results of technological competence do not influence efficiencyfocused strategy adaptation among collaborating partners. The strategies among collaborating partners who value technological competence as the primary work goal are different. The results show that if travel agencies wish to attract new collaborations or retain current ones they have to identify the focus of their firm – market or efficiency – so that the firm can provide for the associated demands. For example, if tour operator direct sales and retailers are open to cooperation and collaboration through strong networks and efficiency-focused forms of collaboration with wholesalers for overcoming fragmentation disadvantages and competitive pressures, the tour operator cannot get the service benefit from the collaboration relationship. As travel agencies generally face competition, collaborating strategies have been a major focus for improving service performance, and they must continuously try to improve their service quality through team cohesiveness. It is important that travel agencies adopt a collaborative network to their strategy of innovation by developing competence in the process of network building, and by discussing different strategies in terms of different segments of customers within the collaboration. Through the collaborating partners’ communications, travel agencies can develop their services to align with the needs of the customers.

References Acur, N., Kandemir, D., de Weerd-Nederhof, P. C., & Song, M. (2010). Exploring the impact of technological competence development on speed and NPD program performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(6), 915–929. Ahn, H. J., & Park, S. J. (2004). A flexible transaction framework for dynamic collaboration of agents – with an online travel application. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, 13(4), 487–520. Allred, C., Fawcett, S., Wallin, C., & Magnan, G. (2011). A dynamic collaboration capability as a source of competitive advantage. Decision Sciences, 42(1), 129–161. Al-Rawi, K. (2008). Cohesiveness within teamwork: The relationship to performance effectiveness – case study. Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues, 1(2), 92 –106. Andreu, L., Alda´s, J., Bigne´, J. E., & Mattila, A. S. (2010). An analysis of e-business adoption and its impact on relational quality in travel agency –supplier relationships. Tourism Management, 31(6), 777 –787. Banker, R., Chang, H., & Kao, Y. (2010). Evaluating cross-organizational impacts of information technology – an empirical analysis. European Journal of Information Systems, 19(2), 153 –167. Buhalis, D., & Licata, M. C. (2002). The future eTourism intermediaries. Tourism Management, 23(3), 207 –220. Camille, R., Je’Anna, A., & Stowe, S. (2005). Recreating cheers: An analysis of relationship marketing as an effective marketing technique for quick-service restaurants. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 17(6/7), 590– 599. Çetindamar, D., & Laage-Hellman, J. (2003). Growth dynamics in the biomedical/biotechnology system. Small Business Economics, 20(4), 287–303. Chiu, D., Yueh, Y., Leung, H., & Hung, P. (2009). Towards ubiquitous tourist service coordination and process integration: A collaborative travel agent system architecture with semantic web services. Information Systems Frontiers, 11(3), 241–256. Cross, R., Ehrlich, K., Dawson, R., & Helferich, J. (2008). Managing collaboration: Improving team effectiveness through a network perspective. California Management Review, 50(4), 74 –98.


14

E.C.S. Ku

Davis, D. F., & Golicic, S. L. (2010). Gaining comparative advantage in supply chain relationships: The mediating role of market-oriented IT competence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(1), 56 –70. De Carolis, D. M. (2003). Competencies and imitability in the pharmaceutical industry: An analysis of their relationship with firm performance. Journal of Management, 29(1), 27 –50. De Luca, L. M., & Atuahene-Gima, K. (2007). Market knowledge dimensions and cross-functional collaboration: Examining the different routes to product innovation performance. Journal of Marketing, 71(1), 95 –112. Dilts, J. C., & Prough, G. E. (1989). Strategic options for environmental management: A comparative study of small vs. large enterprises. Journal of Small Business Management, 27(3), 31 –38. Dobrzykowski, D. D., Tran, O., & Tarafdar, M. T. (2010). Value co-creation and resource based perspectives for strategic sourcing. Strategic Outsourcing: An International Journal, 3(2), 106 –127. Fan, Y.-W., & Ku, E. (2010). Customer focus, service process fit and customer relationship management profitability: The effect of knowledge sharing. The Service Industries Journal, 30(2), 203 –223. Fredendall, L. D., Hopkins, C. D., & Bhonsle, A. (2005). Purchasing’s internal service performance: Critical external and internal determinants. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 41(2), 26–38. Gebauer, H., Fischer, T., & Fleisch, E. (2010). Exploring the interrelationship among patterns of service strategy changes and organizational design elements. Journal of Service Management, 21(1), 103 –129. Graf, A. (2007). Changing roles of customers: Consequences for HRM. Journal of Service Management, 18(5), 491 –509. Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1029–1045. Huang, L. (2008). Strategic orientation and performance measurement model in Taiwan’s travel agencies. The Service Industries Journal, 28(10), 1357– 1383. Hui, T. K., & Wan, D. (2005). Factors affecting consumers’ choice of a travel agency: The case of Singapore. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 19(4), 1–12. Johnson, M. D., & Ettlie, J. E. (2001). Technology, customization, and reliability. Journal of Quality Management, 6(2), 193 –210. Jo¨reskog, K. G., & So¨rbom, D. (1982). Recent developments in structural equation modeling. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 404 –416. Kanagal, N. (2009). Role of relationship marketing in competitive marketing strategy. Journal of Management and Marketing Research, 2, 1–17. Kandemir, D., Yaprak, A., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2006). Alliance orientation: Conceptualization, measurement, and impact on market performance. Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 34(3), 324 –340. Kim, S. S., & Malhotra, N. K. (2005). A longitudinal model of continued IS use: An integrative view of four mechanisms underlying postadoption phenomena. Management Science, 51(5), 741 –755. Knudsen, M. P. (2005). Patterns of technological competence accumulation: A proposition for empirical measurement. Industrial & Corporate Change, 14(6), 1075–1108. Kodama, M. (2005a). Technological innovation through networked strategic communities: A case study on a high-tech company in Japan. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 70(1), 22–35. Kodama, M. (2005b). Innovation through dialectical leadership – case studies of Japanese high-tech companies. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 16(2), 137–156. Ku, E., & Fan, Y. (2009). Knowledge sharing and customer relationship management in the travel service alliances. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 20(12), 1407–1421. Kumar, K., Subramanian, R., & Strandholm, K. (2002). Market and efficiency-based strategic responses to environmental changes in the health care industry. Health Care Management Review, 27(3), 21–31. Lages, L. F., Silva, G., & Styles, C. (2009). Relationship capabilities, quality, and innovation as determinants of export performance. Journal of International Marketing, 17(4), 47 –70. Lokshin, B., Van Gils, A., & Bauer, E. (2009). Crafting firm competencies to improve innovative performance. European Management Journal, 27(3), 187–196.



15

Lukas, B. A. (1999). Strategic type, market orientation, and the balance between adaptability and adaptation. Journal of Business Research, 45(2), 147– 156. Luo, C., Mallick, D. N., & Schroeder, R. G. (2010). Collaborative product development. European Journal of Innovation Management, 13(2), 244–266. Martıńez-Sańchez, A., Vela-Jimeńez, M. J., Pe´rez-Pe´rez, M., & de-Luis-Carnicer, P. (2009). Interorganizational cooperation and environmental change: Moderating effects between flexibility and innovation performance. British Journal of Management, 20(4), 537–561. Matthyssens, P., & Vandenbempt, K. (2010). Service addition as business market strategy: Identification of transition trajectories. Journal of Service Management, 21(5), 693–714. Ray, S. (2003). Strategic adaptation of firms during economic liberalisation: Emerging issues and a research agenda. International Journal of Management, 20(3), 271–281. Richey, R., Jr., Tokman, M., & Dalela, V. (2010). Examining collaborative supply chain service technologies: A study of intensity, relationships, and resources. Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 38(1), 71–89. Scott, J. G., Haozhe, C., & Patricia, J. D. (2009). The relationship between strategic orientation, service innovation, and performance. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 39(4), 282 –300. Segars, A. H. (1997). Assessing the unidimensionality of measurement: A paradigm and illustration within the context of information systems research. Omega, 25(1), 107–121. Shee, D. Y., & Wu, Y.-L. (2008). Is competence set expansion in the information service industry a planned behavior? The moderating effects of action control style. The Service Industries Journal, 28(10), 1385–1398. Stank, T. P., Keller, S. B., & Daugherty, P. J. (2001). Supply chain collaboration and logistical service performance. Journal of Business Logistics, 22(1), 29 –48. Strandholm, K., Kumar, K., & Subramanian, R. (2004). Examining the interrelationships among perceived environmental change, strategic response, managerial characteristics, and organizational performance. Journal of Business Research, 57(1), 58 –68. Wang, S., & Cheung, W. (2004). E-business adoption by travel agencies: Prime candidates for mobile e-business. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 8(3), 43 –63. Woerkom, M., & Sanders, K. (2010). The romance of learning from disagreement. The effect of cohesiveness and disagreement on knowledge sharing behavior and individual performance within teams. Journal of Business & Psychology, 25(1), 139–149. Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. The Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203.