Open Access
MATEC Web Conf.
Volume 215, 2018
The 2nd International Conference on Technology, Innovation, Society and Science-to-Business (ICTIS 2018)
Article Number 02003
Number of page(s) 6
Section Science to Business
Published online 16 October 2018
  1. SME Corporation Malaysia, SME Statistic, [Google Scholar]
  2. Hughes, P., Hodgkinson, I., Hughes, M., & Arshad, D. Explaining the entrepreneurial orientation–performance relationship in emerging economies: The intermediate roles of absorptive capacity and improvisation. Asia Pacific Journal of Management,in press. (2017). [Google Scholar]
  3. Arshad, D. & Hughes, P. (2009). Examining organizational improvisation: the role of strategic reasoning and managerial factors International. Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic and Management Engineering, 3(6), 948–954. [Google Scholar]
  4. Arshad, D., Julienti, L., Ahmad, H. &Hafizi, S. (2015). Unraveling the Link between Environmental Factors and Organizational Improvisation. In E-Proceeding of the International Conference on Social Science Research, ICSSR 2015, 647–655. [Google Scholar]
  5. Nemkova, E., Souchon, A. L., Hughes, P., & Micevski, M., Does Improvisation Help or Hinder Planning in Determining Export Success? Decision Theory Applied to Exporting. Journal of International Marketing, 23, 41–65. [Google Scholar]
  6. Souchon, A.L. and Hughes, P. (2007). Improvising export decisions: A contingency theory perspective. International and Cross-cultural Marketing, Track 8. [Google Scholar]
  7. Dunford, R. (2013). “Flexibility” as the rationale for organizational change: a discourse perspective. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 26, 83–97. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. Moorman, C., & Miner, A. S. (1998). The convergence of planning and execution: Improvisation in new product development. Journal of Marketing, 61, 1–20. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. Vera, D. & Crossan, M. (2005). Improvisation and Innovative Performance in Teams. Organization [Google Scholar]
  10. Arshad, D. (2011). Understanding organisational improvisation: foundations and performance implications. PhD Thesis, Loughborough University. [Google Scholar]
  11. Arshad, D., Razalli, R., Julienti, L., Ahmad, H., & Mahmood, R. (2015). Exploring the Incidence of Strategic Improvisation: Evidence from Malaysian Government Link Corporations. Asian Social Science, 11, 105–112. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. Leybourne, S. (2006). Improvisation within the Project Management of Change: Some Observations from UK Financial Services. Journal of Change Management, 6, 365–381. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. Michielsens, E., Bingham, C., & Clarke, L., Managing diversity through flexible work arrangements: management perspectives. Employee Relations, 36(1), 49–69. [Google Scholar]
  14. Kyriakopolous, K. (2011). Improvisation in product innovation: the contingent role of market information sources and memory types. Organizational Studies, 32(8), 1051–1078. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. Rogers, P.R., Miller, A., and Judge, W.Q. (1999). Using information-processing theory to understand planning/performance relationships in the context of strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 20(6), 567–577. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. Brews, P.J. and Hunt, M.R. (1999). Learning to plan and planning to learn: Resolving the planning school/learning school debate. Strategic Management Journal, 20(10), 889–913. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. Slotegraaf, R.J. and Dickson, P.R. (2004). The paradox of a marketing planning capability. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(4), 71–385. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. New York, NY: The Free Press, 1980. [Google Scholar]
  19. Miller, D. (1998). Relating Porter business strategies to environment and structure: Analysis and performance implications. The Academy of Management Journal, 31(2), 280–308. [Google Scholar]
  20. Liao, Y.S. (2005). Business strategy and performance: The role of human resource management control. Personal Review, 34(3), 294–305. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  21. Burns, T. and Stalker, G.M. (1961). The management of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  22. Kamoche, K., Cunha, M., & Cunha, J. (2002). Organizational Improvisation. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  23. Akgün, A.E., Lynn, G.S., Byrne, J.C. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of unlearning in new product development teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23, 73–88. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  24. Hmieleski, K.M. and Corbett, A.C. (2008). The contrasting interaction effects of improvisational behaviour with entrepreneurial self-efficacy on new venture performance and entrepreneur work satisfaction. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(4), 482–496. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  25. Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review, 26(2), 106–121. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  26. Chin, W. W. (2010). How to write up and report PLS analyses. In V. E. Vinzi, W. W. Chin, J. Henseler & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods and Applications 2(28), 655–690. New York: Springer Heidelberg Dordrecht. [Google Scholar]
  27. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM): SAGE Publications, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  28. Luk, C. L., Yau, O. H. M., Sin, L. Y. M., Tse, A. C. B., Chow, R. P. M., & Lee, J. S. Y. (2008). The effects of social capital and organizational innovativeness in different institutional contexts. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(4), 589–612. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  29. Chow, W. S., & Chan, L. S. (2008). Social network, social trust and shared goals in organizational knowledge sharing. Information & Management, 45(7), 458–465. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  30. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 18(1), 39–50. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.