Modeling Business-to-Business Sharing Drivers Using a Hierarchical Framework Under Uncertainties

Modeling Business-to-Business Sharing Drivers Using a Hierarchical Framework Under Uncertainties

Rahul Kumar, Ka Yin Chau, Yeneneh Tamirat Negash, Yuk Ming Tang
Copyright: © 2022 |Pages: 25
DOI: 10.4018/JGIM.301615
Article PDF Download
Open access articles are freely available for download

Abstract

This study contributes to assessing sharing economy concepts such as sustainability, organizational efficiency, and stakeholder engagement, and develops business-to-business sharing drivers in a hierarchical structure. Job shop production systems are challenged by demand fluctuation and low production capacity. This study adopted the fuzzy Delphi method to arrive at a valid set of attributes and a fuzzy decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory to address the proposed attributes’ relationships. The results show that stakeholder engagement and technological performance are important causal aspects, and economic benefits act as a mediating aspect that drives the perceived organizational utility in JPS. The top causal criteria were identified as outsourced labor services, information sharing, digital platforms, workplace vitality, new technologies, and cost efficiency. These criteria provide a practical solution for managers with which to improve B2B sharing practices in JPS.
Article Preview
Top

Introduction

A job shop production system (JPS) is a manufacturing system wherein workstations are designed to provide high flexibility and produce small batches of various products (Sokolov et al., 2018; Xiang and Liu, 2019). In JPS, to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage and prevail in a global competition setting, resources and operations must be optimized. The sustainability of the sector is challenged by demand fluctuation, low production capacity, high production costs, and the unreliability of product/service delivery (Liu et al., 2019). Business-to-business (B2B) sharing relates to the simultaneous and balanced management of all three sustainability pillars economic benefits, environmental protection, and social development (the TBL) (Coca et al., 2019). B2B sharing intends to consolidate all three TBL pillars and achieve industrial manufacturing sectors’ potential (Lin et al., 2019). Güçdemir and Selim (2017) noted that B2B sharing could play an essential role in enhancing sustainability in JPS because small batches of products have become customary in make-to-order manufacturing systems. Govindan et al. (2020) argued that although there are organizational efficiency advantages to B2B sharing, many JPS lack stakeholder engagement and sharing facilities because of conventional business thinking. The perception is that sharing is riskier in terms of privacy and intellectual property, and less comfortable for organizations. Prior studies have found that the sharing economy is a technology platform for collaboration and sharing resources, but researchers have neglected to provide a hierarchical model of B2B sharing drivers in JPS (Frenken and Schor, 2017; Laukkanen and Tura, 2020). Hence, to implement sustainable B2B sharing in JPS, the drivers should be identified from organizational efficiency and stakeholder engagement perspectives.

In sustainability theory, firms should promote the B2B sharing economy’s benefits, maintain a balance between the TBL, and aim to build a long-term, sustainable marketplace (Hu et al., 2019). Tura et al. (2019) argued that digital technology development presents enormous opportunities to incorporate B2B sharing in conventional business models, especially in organizing production firms. The advancement of technologies and information systems makes B2B sharing practices more appealing and provides a new sustainability path (Frenken and Schor, 2017). Biswas et al. (2018) claimed that technology creates a platform for integrating the physical world into the digital world, thus improving productivity, efficiency and aiding economic growth of society. However, while technology provides the infrastructure, organizations should achieve appropriate and balanced levels of TBL efficiency. Coca et al. (2019) noted that, in B2B sharing, sustainability has become a challenge for organizational management. Rational choice theory (RCT) provides a framework for understanding efficiency-seeking organizational design and modeling social and economic decision-making based on the utilitarian analysis of consequences (Zey, 2015; Bolis et al., 2017). Laukkanen and Tura (2020) discussed incorporating B2B sharing drivers into an organization’s long-term strategy to decrease risk and uncertainty and increase operational stability. Stakeholder theory suggests that treating competitors as stakeholders rather than adversaries, and in stakeholder engagement, can boost an organization’s ability to improve knowledge exploitation and resource efficiency (Lindsey et al., 2018; Veronica et al., 2020). Veronica et al. (2020) argued that stakeholder engagement increases resource efficiency, which entails higher revenue, minimizes organizational costs, and positively influences sustainability. Stakeholder engagement is influential in addressing simultaneous environmental, economic, and social concerns (Bouloiz, 2020; Veronica et al., 2020). Hence, we argue that B2B sharing needs to integrate technological performance, stakeholder engagement, and organizational utility to address the TBL.

Complete Article List

Search this Journal:
Reset
Volume 32: 1 Issue (2024)
Volume 31: 9 Issues (2023)
Volume 30: 12 Issues (2022)
Volume 29: 6 Issues (2021)
Volume 28: 4 Issues (2020)
Volume 27: 4 Issues (2019)
Volume 26: 4 Issues (2018)
Volume 25: 4 Issues (2017)
Volume 24: 4 Issues (2016)
Volume 23: 4 Issues (2015)
Volume 22: 4 Issues (2014)
Volume 21: 4 Issues (2013)
Volume 20: 4 Issues (2012)
Volume 19: 4 Issues (2011)
Volume 18: 4 Issues (2010)
Volume 17: 4 Issues (2009)
Volume 16: 4 Issues (2008)
Volume 15: 4 Issues (2007)
Volume 14: 4 Issues (2006)
Volume 13: 4 Issues (2005)
Volume 12: 4 Issues (2004)
Volume 11: 4 Issues (2003)
Volume 10: 4 Issues (2002)
Volume 9: 4 Issues (2001)
Volume 8: 4 Issues (2000)
Volume 7: 4 Issues (1999)
Volume 6: 4 Issues (1998)
Volume 5: 4 Issues (1997)
Volume 4: 4 Issues (1996)
Volume 3: 4 Issues (1995)
Volume 2: 4 Issues (1994)
Volume 1: 4 Issues (1993)
View Complete Journal Contents Listing