Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

New Approaches in Supporting to SMEs Competitiveness

  • Chapter
Benchmarking Collaborative Networks

Part of the book series: Contributions to Management Science ((MANAGEMENT SC.))

  • 1358 Accesses

Abstract

Considering the limitations of SMEs, it is obvious that they require support to improve their competitiveness. Watching the operation of big and highly competitive companies, we may notice that the power derived from cooperation and mutual trust is becoming more and more appreciated. Trust creates the foundations of collaboration and mutual understanding, but may also pose a threat to an entity that does not analyse and rationalise its decisions in this respect. Cooperation based on trust also create conditions for learning from one another through the application of developed and verified patterns. Benchmarking defined this way will serve the entire collaborating community and contribute to enhancing its competitiveness. The effectiveness of collaboration in the field of patterns and analyses should be supported by specialised IT technologies such as Business Intelligence or other types of advanced systems of analysis and data reporting. Nevertheless, it is also possible to imagine a situation in which a collaborating group established to reinforce its competitiveness does not have enough knowledge and skills even as a sum of entities. A solution to this problem may be information and knowledge brokering. It allows for using external knowledge and information reserves to support the achievement of own goals and objectives. The aforementioned elements are summarised in the BCN (Benchmarking Collaborative Network) concept drafted in this chapter. Its detailed characteristic is the subject of all the remaining chapters of the present book.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Comarch—a global powerhouse specialized in the design, implementation and integration of advanced IT services and software (http://www.comarch.co.uk/).

  2. 2.

    http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/services/benchmarkcenter/, date of reading 23-07-2013.

  3. 3.

    http://www.cartesian.com/technology/technical-services-and-consulting/it-benchmarking, date of reading 23-07-2013.

  4. 4.

    Gartner Inc. is the world’s leading information technology research and advisory company.

  5. 5.

    ISO 31000:2009. Risk management—Principles and guidelines.

References

  • ABC-Network. (2007). Benchmarking study. Deliverable n. 6. Network of European Agro-Biotech Clusters. EUROPE INNOVA, European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahmed, P., & Rafi, Q. M. (1998). Integrated benchmarking: A holistic examination of select technics for benchmarking analysis. Benchmarking for Quality Management and Technology, 5(3), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajelabi, I., & Tang, Y. (2010). The adoption of benchmarking principles for project management performance improvement. International Journal of Managing Public Sector Information and Communication Techniques, 1(2), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akbar, K., Krishna, S. M., & Reddy, T. V. S. (2013). ETL process modeling in DWH using enhanced quality techniques. International Journal of Database Theory & Application, 6(4), 179–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akram, J. K. (2011). The value of Competitive Business Intelligence System (CBIS) to stimulate competitiveness in global market. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(19), 196–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baars, H., & Kemper, H. (2010). Business intelligence in the cloud? PACIS 2010 Proceedings. Paper, 145, 1528–1539.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bigliardi, B., Dormio, A. I., & Galati, F. (2011). Successful co-opetition strategy: Evidence from an Italian consortium. International Journal of Business, Management and Social Sciences, 2(4), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2013). Analyzing social networks. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandenburger, A. M., & Nalebuff, B. J. (1996). Co-opetition. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruno, I. (2009). The indefinite discipline of competitiveness benchmarking as a neoliberal technology of government. Minerva, 47(3), 261–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, M. F., & Chung, W. W. (2002). A framework to develop an enterprise information portal for contract manufacturing. International Journal of Production Economics, 75(1), 113–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, N., Hostmann, B., Rayner, N., & Herschel, G. (2011). Gartner’s business analytics framework. Gartner Report G00219420. Stamford, CT: Gartner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Child, J., Faulkner, D., & Tallman, S. B. (2005). Cooperative strategy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Christozov, D., & Toleva-Stoimenova, S. (2014). The role of information brokers in knowledge management. Online Journal of Applied Knowledge Management A Publication of the International Institute for Applied Knowledge Management, 2(2), 109–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Completo, J., Cruz, R. S., Coheur, L., & Delgado, M. (2012). Design and implementation of a Data Warehouse for benchmarking in clinical rehabilitation. Procedia Technology, 5, 885–894.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crouch, G. I. (2011). Destination competitiveness: An analysis of determinant attributes. Journal of Travel Research, 50(1), 27–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czakon, W., Fernandez, A. S., & Mina, A. (2014). Editorial—From paradox to practice: The rise of coopetition strategies. International Journal of Business Environment, 6(1), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czakon, W., & Klimas, P. (2014). Innovative networks in knowledge-intensive industries: How to make them work? An empirical investigation into the Polish Aviation Valley. In D. Jemielniak (Ed.), The laws of the knowledge workplace (pp. 133–158). Farnham: Gower Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Aveni, R. (1994). Hypercompetition. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daddi, T., Tessitore, S., & Frey, M. (2012). Eco-innovation and competitiveness in industrial clusters. International Journal of Technology Management, 58(1), 49–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danik, L., & Lewandowska, M. S. (2013). Motives and barriers in the field of cooperation between companies. Research outcomes based on the Polish Engineering Industry. Journal of Economics & Management, 2013(14), 21–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denchev, S., & Christozov, D. (2012). Informing and information brokering. Sofia, Bulgaria: Marin Drinov Publishing House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dévai, K., Papanek, G., & Borsi, B. (2002). A methodology for benchmarking RTD organisations in Central and Eastern Europe. Budapest: Budapest University of Technology and Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dionne, G. (2013). Risk management: History, definition, and critique. Risk Management and Insurance Review. American Risk and Insurance Association, 16(2), 147–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doan, A., Raghu, R., & Halevy, A. Y. (2011). Crowdsourcing systems on the world-wide web. Communications of the ACM, 54(4), 86–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckerson, W. W. (2010). Performance dashboards: Measuring, monitoring, and managing your business. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elmuti, D., & Kathawala, Y. (1997). An overview of benchmarking process: a tool for continuous improvement and competitive advantage. Benchmarking for Quality Management & Technology, 4(4), 229–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ESCA. (2012). Benchmarking as a tool of cluster analysis. Cluster excellence makes the difference. Berlin: European Secretariat of Cluster Analysis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Estellés-Arolas, E., & González-Ladrón-de-Guevara, F. (2012). Towards an integrated crowdsourcing definition. Journal of Information science, 38(2), 189–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2012). Customs 2013 programme benchmarking guide. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falck, O., & Heblich, S. (2007). Corporate social responsibility: Doing well by doing good. Business Horizons, 50(3), 247–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foshay, N., Taylor, A., & Mukherjee, A. (2014). A conceptual model of metadata’s role in BI success. In W. Yeoh, J. Talburt, & Y. Zhou (Eds.), Information quality and governance for business intelligence (pp. 1–19). Hershey, PA: Business Science Reference. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-4892-0.ch001.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fryman, H. (2007). The successful path to combining BI and BPM. Align Journal. Dallas: TCI Publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilpin, R. (2000). The challenge of global capitalism: The world economy in the 21st century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gnyawali, D. R., & Park, B. J. R. (2009). Co‐opetition and technological innovation in small and medium‐sized enterprises: A multilevel conceptual model. Journal of Small Business Management, 47(3), 308–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grudzewski, W. M., Hejduk, I. K., & Sankowska, A. (2009). Trust management as a base of new economy management practices. Economics and Organization of Future Enterprise, 4(2), 2–8. doi:10.2478/v10061-009-0014-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hetmank, L. (2013). Towards a semantic standard for enterprise crowdsourcing. A scenario-based evaluation of a conceptual prototype. ECIS 2013 Completed Research. Paper 118. Url: http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2013_cr/118

  • Honkola J., Laine, H., Brown, R., & Tyrkko, O. (2010). Smart-M3 information sharing platform. In: IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications (ISCC) (pp. 1041–1046), 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosmer, L. T. (1995). Trust: The connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 379–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huggins, R. (2010). Regional competitive intelligence: Benchmarking and policy-making. Regional Studies, 44(5), 639–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inkpen, A. C., & Tsang, E. (2005). Social capital networks and knowledge transfer. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 146–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inmon, W. H. (2005). Building the data warehouse (4th ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inmon, W. H., & Nesavich, A. (2007). Tapping into unstructured data: Integrating unstructured data and textual analytics into business intelligence. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inmon, W. H., Strauss, D., & Neushloss, G. (2010). DW 2.0: The architecture for the next generation of data warehousing: The architecture for the next generation of data warehousing. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inovisa. (2012). International benchmarking study of competitiveness poles and clusters and identification of best practices. Ribatejo, Portugal: The Cluster Agro-Industrial.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones-Kaminski, S. (2009). I’m at a networking event–Now what? Silicon Valley: HappyAbout.Info.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kantardzic, M. (2011). Data mining: Concepts, models, methods, and algorithms (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kemper, H. G., Baars, H., & Lasi, H. (2013). An integrated business intelligence framework. Closing the gap between IT support for management and for production. In P. Rausch, A. F. Sheta, & A. Ayesh (Eds.), Business intelligence and performance management theory, systems and industrial applications (pp. 13–26). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ketels, C. (2011). Clusters and competitiveness: Porter’s contribution. In: R., Huggins, & H., Izushi (eds.) Competition, competitive advantage and clusters: The ideas of Michael Porter (pp. 173–191). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ketels, C., Lindqvist, G., & Sölvell, Ö. (2012). Strengthening clusters and competitiveness in Europe. Stocholm: Stocholm School of Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khetrapal, P., & Thakur, T. (2014). A review of benchmarking approaches for productivity and efficiency measurement in electricity distribution sector. International Journal of Electronics and Electrical Engineering, 2(3), 214–221. Doi: 10.12720/ijeee.2.3.214-221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, S., Suh, E., & Jun, Y. (2011). Building a knowledge brokering system using social network analysis: A case study of the Korean financial industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(12), 14633–14649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimball, R., Ross, M., Thorthwaite, W., Becker, B., & Mundy, J. (2008). The data warehouse lifecycle toolkit. Indianapolis, IN: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacoste, S. (2012). Vertical coopetition: The key account perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(4), 649–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai, M. C., Huang, H. C., & Wang, W. K. (2011). Designing a knowledge-based system for benchmarking: A DEA approach. Knowledge-Based Systems, 24(5), 662–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, M., Loebbecke, C., & Powell, P. (2003). SMEs, coopetition and knowledge sharing: The role of information systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 12(1), 3–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lilama. (2010). Observatory of good practices. Benchmarking method guide. The Lilama Network, European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luo, Y. (2004). A coopetition perspective of MNC-host government relations. Journal of International Management, 10(4), 431–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maggetti, M., & Gilardi, F. (2011). The policy-making structure of European regulatory networks and the domestic adoption of standards. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(6), 830–847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maltby, D. (2011). Big data analytics. Proceeding of Association for Information Science and Technology 2011, 74th Annual Meeting, New Orleans.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marjanovic, O. (2010). The importance of process thinking in business intelligence. International Journal of Business Intelligence Research, 1(4), 29–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin D., Oohama H., Moran D., & Cheyer A. (1997). Information brokering in an agent architecture. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the practical application of intelligent agents and multi-agent technology, (pp. 467–489).

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2010). The rise of the knowledge broker. Science Communication, 32(1), 118–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michaels, S. (2009). Matching knowledge brokering strategies to environmental policy problems and settings. Environmental Science and Policy, 12(2009), 994–1011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, M. H., Kocak, A., & Özer, A. (2007). Coopetition as a small business strategy: Implications for performance. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 18(1), 35–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okura, M. (2007). Coopetitive strategies of Japanese Insurance firms—A game theory approach. International Studies of Management and Organization, 37(2), 53–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ouf, S., & Nasr, M. (2011). Business intelligence in the cloud. In Communication Software and Networks (ICCSN), 2011 I.E. 3rd International Conference on (pp. 650–655). IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paliszkiewicz, J. (2011). Trust management: Literature review. Management, 6(4), 315–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paliszkiewicz, J., & Koohang, A. (2013). Organizational trust as a foundation for knowledge sharing and its influence on organizational performance. Online Journal of Applied Knowledge Management, 1(2), 116–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, Y. W., Amano, T., & Moon, G. (2012). Benchmarking open and cluster innovation: Case of Korea. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 19(4/5), 517–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parshotam, K. (2013). Crowd computing: a literature review and definition. In Proceedings of the South African Institute for Computer Scientists and Information Technologists Conference (pp. 121–130). ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poetz, M. K., & Schreier, M. (2012). The value of crowdsourcing: Can users really compete with professionals in generating new product ideas? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(2), 245–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. London: Collier Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1998). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raharjo, H., Chai, K. H., Xie, M., & Brombacher, A. C. (2010). Dynamic benchmarking methodology for quality function deployment. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 17(1), 27–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ranjan, J. (2009). Business intelligence: Concepts, components, techniques and benefits. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 9(1), 60–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivest, S., Bédard, Y., Proulx, M. J., Nadeau, M., Hubert, F., & Pastor, J. (2005). SOLAP technology: Merging business intelligence with geospatial technology for interactive spatio-temporal exploration and analysis of data. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 60(1), 17–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rostek, K. (2010). Business intelligence for SME. In E. Lechman (Ed.), SMEs and enterpreneurship (Vol. 2, pp. 164–190). Gdańsk: Gdańsk University of Technology Publishing House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rostek, K. (2013a). Dedicated business intelligence system for SMEs consortium. African Journal of Business Management, 7(13), 999–1014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rostek, K. (2013b). The mutual benchmarking method for SMEs’ competitive strategy development. Foundations of Management, International Journal, 5(2), 81–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rostek, K. (2014). The paradigm of mutual benchmarking in the context of SMEs’ competitiveness development. International Journal of Business and Management Research, 2(1), 66–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouhani, S., Asgari, S., & Mirhosseini, S. (2012). Review study: Business intelligence concepts and approaches. American Journal of Scientific Research, 50, 62–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russom, P. (2011). Big data analytics. TDWI best practices report. Renton: The Data Warehouse Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sapio, B., Palombini, I., & Cioffi, S. (2007). IBIS: International benchmarking of the information society. Observatorio (OBS*) Journal, 1(2007), 225–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saxton, G. D., Onook, O., & Kishore, R. (2013). Rules of crowdsourcing: Models, issues, and systems of control. Information Systems Management, 30(1), 2–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 344–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seufert, A., & Schiefer, J. (2005). Enhanced business intelligence: Supporting business processes with real-time business analytics. In: Database and Expert Systems Applications, 2005. Proceedings. Sixteenth International Workshop on IEEE, (pp. 919–925).

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaxson L., & Gwyn, E. (2010). Developing a strategy for knowledge translation and brokering in public policymaking. In: The knowledge translation and brokering, the Special Workshop on 2010, Montreal, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sroka, W., & Hittmár, Š. (2013). Management of alliance networks: Formation, functionality, and post operational strategies. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sztompka, P. (2000). Trust: A sociological theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, H., & Datta, A. (2001). A conceptual model and algebra for on-line analytical processing in decision support databases. Information Systems Research, 12(1), 83–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, H., & Pollock, T. (1999). From I-O economics’ S-C-P paradigm through strategic groups to competence-based competition: Reflections on the puzzle of competitive strategy. British Journal of Management, 10(2), 127–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tidstrom, A. (2008). Perspectives on coopetition on actor and operational levels. Management Research, 6(3), 207–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trkman, P., McCormack, K., De Oliveira, M. P. V., & Ladeira, M. B. (2010). The impact of business analytics on supply chain performance. Decision Support Systems, 49(3), 318–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turnhout, E., Stuiver, M., Klostermann, J., Harms, B., & Leeuwis, C. (2013). New roles of science in society: Different repertoires of knowledge brokering. Science and Public Policy, 40(3), 354–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Aalst, W. M. (2011). Using process mining to bridge the gap between BI and BPM. IEEE Computer, 44(12), 77–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vukovic, M. (2009). Crowdsourcing for enterprises. Services-I, 2009 World Conference on, IEEE, 686–692. DOI: 10.1109/SERVICES-I.2009.56

  • Waas, F., Wrembel, R., Freudenreich, T., Thiele, M., Koncilia, C., & Furtado, P. (2013). On-demand ETL architecture for right-time BI: Extending the vision. International Journal of Data Warehousing and Mining, 9(2), 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, S. M., Indurkhya, N., Zhang, T., & Damerau, F. (2005). Text mining: Predictive methods for analyzing unstructured information. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Xavier, M. J., & Ramachander, S. (2000). The pursuit of immortality: A new approach beyond the competitiveness paradigm. Management Decision, 38(7), 480–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, G., Zhang, Y., & Li, L. (2010). Web mining and social networking: Techniques and applications (Vol. 6). Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zakrzewska-Bielawska, A. (2013). Coopetition in high-technology firms: Resource-based determinants. In: A. Zaharim, R. G. Rodrigues (eds.), Recent advances in management, marketing and finances (pp. 51–56). Business and Economic Series (4). Cambridge: WSEAS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeng, S. X., Xie, X. M., & Tam, C. M. (2010). Relationship between cooperation networks and innovation performance of SMEs. Technovation, 30(3), 181–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zicari, R. V. (2014). Big data: Challenges and opportunities. In R. Akerkar (Ed.), Big data computing (pp. 103–128). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Management, Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland

    Katarzyna Rostek

Authors
  1. Katarzyna Rostek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Rostek, K. (2015). New Approaches in Supporting to SMEs Competitiveness. In: Benchmarking Collaborative Networks. Contributions to Management Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16736-7_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation