组织敏捷性研究的演变:一个回顾的观点

IF 4.5 Q1 MANAGEMENT Benchmarking-An International Journal Pub Date : 2023-05-11 DOI:10.1108/bij-02-2023-0086
Tanushree, C. K. Sahoo, A. Chaubey
{"title":"组织敏捷性研究的演变:一个回顾的观点","authors":"Tanushree, C. K. Sahoo, A. Chaubey","doi":"10.1108/bij-02-2023-0086","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeIn recent years, organizational agility (OA) has garnered significant attention from the academic community. Despite a substantial rise in the academic literature on OA, the nuanced understanding of OA among academicians, practitioners and policymakers is limited. To address this research gap, the current study attempts to synthesize the academic literature on organizational literature, understand the evolution of OA literature and state the potential research gaps that may open multiple research avenues.Design/methodology/approachThe current study critically evaluates academic literature published in peer-reviewed journals using the bibliometric approach to map the intellectual structure of identified 224 articles on published literature on OA between 2001 and 2022.FindingsThe findings outline OA's evolutionary trend, most prolific authors, journals, affiliations and countries. Further, network analysis is deployed to unearth prominent OA themes. After that, four key themes of OA from each cluster have been identified and evaluated.Research limitations/implicationsThe study is based on the literature drawn from the SCOPUS database. Although the SCOPUS database is one of the largest databases, the authors believe that the SCOPUS does not contain some publications that might have offered some different insights. Secondly, the bibliometric analysis does not offer the opportunity to provide critical insights into published literature, which is one of the main limitations of bibliometric-based studies. However, despite some of these limitations, the authors believe that the study is a useful guide for scholars, practitioners and policymakers who do not have much information related to OA literature.Originality/valueThis article provides a pioneering review of the OA literature using bibliometrics and network analysis. The results and potential directions for further research may assist researchers in increasing the relevance of OA in the current uncertain and ambiguous environment.","PeriodicalId":48029,"journal":{"name":"Benchmarking-An International Journal","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evolution of organizational agility research: a retrospective view\",\"authors\":\"Tanushree, C. K. Sahoo, A. Chaubey\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/bij-02-2023-0086\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposeIn recent years, organizational agility (OA) has garnered significant attention from the academic community. Despite a substantial rise in the academic literature on OA, the nuanced understanding of OA among academicians, practitioners and policymakers is limited. To address this research gap, the current study attempts to synthesize the academic literature on organizational literature, understand the evolution of OA literature and state the potential research gaps that may open multiple research avenues.Design/methodology/approachThe current study critically evaluates academic literature published in peer-reviewed journals using the bibliometric approach to map the intellectual structure of identified 224 articles on published literature on OA between 2001 and 2022.FindingsThe findings outline OA's evolutionary trend, most prolific authors, journals, affiliations and countries. Further, network analysis is deployed to unearth prominent OA themes. After that, four key themes of OA from each cluster have been identified and evaluated.Research limitations/implicationsThe study is based on the literature drawn from the SCOPUS database. Although the SCOPUS database is one of the largest databases, the authors believe that the SCOPUS does not contain some publications that might have offered some different insights. Secondly, the bibliometric analysis does not offer the opportunity to provide critical insights into published literature, which is one of the main limitations of bibliometric-based studies. However, despite some of these limitations, the authors believe that the study is a useful guide for scholars, practitioners and policymakers who do not have much information related to OA literature.Originality/valueThis article provides a pioneering review of the OA literature using bibliometrics and network analysis. The results and potential directions for further research may assist researchers in increasing the relevance of OA in the current uncertain and ambiguous environment.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48029,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Benchmarking-An International Journal\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Benchmarking-An International Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/bij-02-2023-0086\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Benchmarking-An International Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/bij-02-2023-0086","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

近年来,组织敏捷性(organizational agility, OA)受到了学术界的广泛关注。尽管关于OA的学术文献大量增加,但学者、从业者和政策制定者对OA的细微理解是有限的。为了解决这一研究空白,本研究试图综合组织文献的学术文献,了解OA文献的演变,并指出可能开辟多种研究途径的潜在研究空白。本研究使用文献计量学方法对发表在同行评议期刊上的学术文献进行批判性评估,以绘制2001年至2022年间已发表的224篇开放获取文献的知识结构。研究结果概述了开放获取的发展趋势、最多产的作者、期刊、附属机构和国家。进一步,运用网络分析,发掘突出的OA主题。在此之后,确定和评价了每组OA的四个关键主题。研究局限性/启示本研究基于SCOPUS数据库中的文献。虽然SCOPUS数据库是最大的数据库之一,但作者认为SCOPUS中没有包含一些可能提供一些不同见解的出版物。其次,文献计量学分析不能提供对已发表文献的批判性见解,这是基于文献计量学研究的主要局限性之一。然而,尽管存在这些局限性,作者认为该研究对没有太多与OA文献相关信息的学者、从业者和政策制定者来说是一个有用的指南。原创性/价值本文使用文献计量学和网络分析对开放获取文献进行了开创性的回顾。这些结果和潜在的进一步研究方向可能有助于研究人员在当前不确定和模糊的环境中增加OA的相关性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Evolution of organizational agility research: a retrospective view
PurposeIn recent years, organizational agility (OA) has garnered significant attention from the academic community. Despite a substantial rise in the academic literature on OA, the nuanced understanding of OA among academicians, practitioners and policymakers is limited. To address this research gap, the current study attempts to synthesize the academic literature on organizational literature, understand the evolution of OA literature and state the potential research gaps that may open multiple research avenues.Design/methodology/approachThe current study critically evaluates academic literature published in peer-reviewed journals using the bibliometric approach to map the intellectual structure of identified 224 articles on published literature on OA between 2001 and 2022.FindingsThe findings outline OA's evolutionary trend, most prolific authors, journals, affiliations and countries. Further, network analysis is deployed to unearth prominent OA themes. After that, four key themes of OA from each cluster have been identified and evaluated.Research limitations/implicationsThe study is based on the literature drawn from the SCOPUS database. Although the SCOPUS database is one of the largest databases, the authors believe that the SCOPUS does not contain some publications that might have offered some different insights. Secondly, the bibliometric analysis does not offer the opportunity to provide critical insights into published literature, which is one of the main limitations of bibliometric-based studies. However, despite some of these limitations, the authors believe that the study is a useful guide for scholars, practitioners and policymakers who do not have much information related to OA literature.Originality/valueThis article provides a pioneering review of the OA literature using bibliometrics and network analysis. The results and potential directions for further research may assist researchers in increasing the relevance of OA in the current uncertain and ambiguous environment.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.40
自引率
16.10%
发文量
154
期刊介绍: Benchmarking is big news for companies committed to total quality programmes. Its enthusiastic reception by many prominent business figures has created high levels of interest in a technique which promises big rewards for co-operating partners. Yet, like total quality itself, it must be understood in its proper context, and implemented single mindedly if it is to be effective - this journal helps companies to decide if benchmarking is right for them, and shows them how to go about it successfully.
期刊最新文献
E-waste supply chain risk management: a framework considering omnichannel and circular economy The importance of warehouses in logistics outsourcing: benchmarking the perspectives of 3PL providers and shippers Finding the sweet spot in Industry 4.0 transformation: an exploration of the drivers, challenges and readiness of the Thai sugar industry The moderating effect of environmental performance on the relationship between sustainability assurance quality and firm value: a simultaneous equations approach Examining the relationships between big data analytics capability, entrepreneurial orientation and sustainable supply chain performance: moderating role of trust
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1