a typol ogy of strategic relationsh ips in re ligious t...

4t

6-

ــ∗E

thInternati

-7Decembe

ATypol

Assistant

Assistant Pro

Fut

Abstract The import

become mor

attention to

which occur

literature re

relationship

network the

namely, reli

Keywords: Bu

ـــــــــــــــE-mail: aheidary

ionalConfe

er2016

logyofStr

Prof., Produ

of., Human R

tures Studies

ance of netw

re and more e

the applicatio

r inside, i.e. c

eview and a r

s in the contex

ory by propos

gious tourism

usiness Networ

ـــــــــــــــ[email protected]

renceonSt

rategicR

Busin

uction and Op

University

HamResource Ma

Mohams, Faculty of

working in th

evident to tour

on of network

ompetition, c

resource-based

xt of religious

sing the applic

m.

rks, Religious T

ـــــــــــــــ

trategicMan

Relationsh

nessNetw

Ali Heidariperation Man

of Tehran, T

mid Reza Yazanagement, U

Tehran, Iran

mmad Reza JManagemen

PP: 559-572

he area of in

rism scholars.

king in a relig

oopetition and

d view, this

s tourism netw

cability of the

Tourism, Strate

ــــــــــــــــ

nagement,

hipsinRe

works

∗ nagement, Fa

Tehran, Iran

zdani University of

n

Jalilvand nt, University

2

nter-organizati

However, pri

gious setting,

d cooperation

paper present

working. This

e networking p

egic Relationsh

ـــــــــــــــ Co

eligiousT

aculty of Ma

f Tehran, Far

y of Tehran, I

ional network

ior literature h

particularly t

n. Drawing on

ts a typology

research contr

processes in a

hip.

ـــــــــــــــorresponding Au

Tourism

anagement,

rabi Campus

Iran

k theory has

has paid little

the processes

n an extended

y of strategic

ributes to the

a new setting;

ـــــــــــــــuthor: Ali Heid

s,

ــــdary

560 4thInternationalConferenceonStrategicManagement

Introduction Understanding the strategic relationships among tourism businesses in a certain

destination is an inevitable issue for success in the tourism industry. Tourism

involves the development of informal and formal partnerships, collaboration and

networks. Such inter-organizational networks contain independent suppliers (in

private or public sector) linked to deliver an overall product (Scott, Cooper and

Baggio, 2008). According to Industrial Network Approach (INA), tourism

organizations should not be seen as independent entities acting on their own

interest in the market and in order to develop their activities, they need to interact

with other organizations. This system of independent organizations then forms an

industrial network which in turn, creates value as a network. Destination

management organizations (DMOs) can be considered as coordinating

mechanisms in tourism business networks, including agents performing activities

in collaboration with other agents and controlling resources (Lemmetyinen, 2010).

A recent trend in tourism industry is the loosely formed alliance of tourism

organizations, such as local or regional tourism associations and other alliances

initiated and organized by local destination management organizations. A

typological description of the relationships among organizations in the tourism

industry helps to understand how tourism businesses perceive their relationships

with their peers and how they shift from one existing relationship mode to another

(Watkins and Bell, 2002). Identifying the driving factors that form the dynamic

configuration of the business relationships provides theoretical contribution and

offers practical directions to the successful operation of destination alliances.

Furthermore, the fragmented nature of tourism industry and the complexity of

destination management require a collective approach to destination management.

How DMOs in a destination keep a balance between competition and cooperation,

determines the effectiveness of their destination management efforts as well as the

competitiveness and destination success in the long term. Although previous

research has paid attention to the importance of working relationships in tourism

business networks, a review of the related literature indicates that answers to the

above issues are too indefinite in the context of religious tourism to provide

theoretical contributions or practical guidelines. Identifying the importance of the

issue in the new setting of religious tourism, this paper aims to achieve the

following two objectives:

ATypologyofStrategicRelationshipsinReligiousTourismBusinessNetworks 561

• introduce the types of business relationships (competition, cooperation,

coopetition) among stakeholders of tourism industry in a religious

destination; • identify a configuration of cooperative business relationship in a religious

destination.

Religious tourism Religious tourism is a type of tourism in which visitors are motivated, either in

part or exclusively, for religious reasons. Rinschede (1992) proposed two different

forms of religious tourism including short-term without an overnight stay and

long-term with overnight stay of at least one day. Short-term religious tourism is

characterized by spatially limited travel over short distances. The goal of this

tourism is to go to a religious center with local, regional, or pilgrimage sites or to

participate in a religious celebration, a religious conference, or a church meeting.

Long-term religious tourism includes visits to religious centers for several days or

weeks. It does not limit itself to the visitation of national and international

pilgrimage sites; rather, it includes the visitation of other national and

international religious centers. Compared to other types of tourism, religious

tourism has several distinct characteristics, including the number of participants,

means of transportation, seasonal pattern, and social structure. Firstly, in terms of

the number of participants, the person traveling alone in religious tourism

(individual tourism) represents a minority. In fact, the majority of visitors travel

with family members (family tourism) or with organized groups (group tourism)

to a religious destination. Secondly, until the middle of the nineteenth century,

pilgrims traveled on foot. Today, foot pilgrimage still exists in all regions and

cultures. Thirdly, religious tourism is bound to a certain season, even when some

religious sites can be visited throughout the year. Finally, the stream of religious

tourism can be differentiated by aspects of its social structure. The distribution of

the sexes among pilgrims in various world religions differs widely. For example,

in Mecca, the predominance of men is more pronounced. In contrast, in Lourdes,

there is a strong stream of women visitors. Similar differences can be observed in

the age of the pilgrims (Rinschede, 1992). Religious tourism sites such as


mosques, cathedrals, and temples are recently attracting an increasing number of

visitors worldwide, not only because of their spiritual significance but also

because of the educational, recreational, and cultural purposes they fulfill

(Francis, Williams, Annis, and Robbins, 2008). Not all religious sites are

conceived as religious-tourism sites but may evolve as tourism attractions. As a

result, religious-tourism is considered as visits to the sites of current and/or past

religious significance (Hughes, Bond, and Ballantyne, 2013) and as the visitation

of religious settings considered relevant to one’s own faith or the faith of others

(Raj and Morpeth, 2007).

Religious tourism business networks (RTBN) A network is a composite of a large number of agents and the pattern of

relationships that link them together. A business network has been defined as a set

of two or more interconnected relationships, in which each exchange relationship

is between firms that are conceptualized as collective agents. Business networks

are regarded as sets of connected firms or alternatively as sets of connected

relationships between firms (Aureli and Forlani, 2016). In tourism industry,

innovations are promoted through network relationships and alliances for multiple

reasons but mainly in order to improve communications among firms. Hence, an

RTBN can be defined as a value-creating, intentional or strategic network of

firms, organizations, and facilities set up to serve the specific needs and desires of

religious tourists which consists of actors engaged in activities as well as controls

resources in relation to other actors (Lemmetyinen, 2010). The major businesses

operating under tourism industry include hotels and accommodation, airlines,

ferry and cruise operators, restaurants, travel agencies and tour operators, tourist

attractions and car rental agencies (Seaton and Bennett, 2004: 4). Business

networks provide religious destinations with four competitive advantages

including (1) adaptation (refers to the act of modifying the strategy, stance,

posture, or resources in order to enhance complementarity with partners); (2)

knowledge (collaboration helps firms to utilize alliances better as vehicles for

learning new technologies and skills from alliance partners); (3) control (leads to

greater access over information and resources); and (4) resources (networks lead

to access to resources, more than what a firm could access individually) (Pillai,


2006). The influence of DMO in the structure of collaboration in RTBN is

inevitable given its role as a catalyst linking all the other networks involved in

tourism, such as transport, accommodation and attractions. Firms in an RTBN

develop a network of relationships through connected activities, linked resources

and related actors, all of which are interconnected and interdependent. Efficiency

will be achieved through the interlinking of activities, creative leveraging of

resource heterogeneity and mutuality based on self-interest of actors. Through

exchange relationship processes with other firms’ activities and resources, bonds

are created and developed (Osarenkhoe, 2010).

Resource Based View (RBV) and RTBN According to RBV, the inter-organizational networks are strategic assets

generating a longitudinal competitive advantage for business firms. RBV theory

supposes that economic interest and competitive advantage or the survival of a

firm highly depends on the strategic resources (such as tangible assets, financial

resources, human resources and information resources) it owns, it controls or to

which it has access (Lakshman, 2012). Interestingly, in today’s business

environment more and more firms suffer from resource gaps. The growing

resource scarcities turn firms’ attention to the creation of inter-organizational

relationships and becoming actors of inter-organizational networks. Furthermore,

the inter-organizational networks are considered as a source of substantial added

value providing key competencies. In the context of religious tourism, in order to

gain access to the resources and competencies available inside the network held

by other actors, the tourism firms should be able to develop and use inter-

organizational relationships. An RTBN is established by at least three relatively

independent and self-contained firms involved in long-term, non-incidental

relationships aimed at achieving common goals. Therefore, an RTBN is a form of

organized activity taking the form of a complex system of nodes connected by

different types of relationships (Gulati, 2007). The number and configuration of

these two network components (i.e. ties and nodes) determines its structure.

Nodes (labeled as actors or partners) are different firms making the network.

Nodes are diversified in terms of size, maturity, and type or profile of business.

Actors of the network are both commercial and non-commercial organizations

such as religious attractions, hotels and restaurants, tour operators, travel agencies,


and airlines. Additionally, nodes are diversified in terms of the location they

reside in (periphery or centre) within the network and the roles they play. A set of

inter-organizational ties (labeled as relationships or links) is the other component

of networks. Nodes are interconnected by long-term inter-organizational

relationships that facilitate the exchange of assets, human resources, energy and

information. Ties are unsolicited and established to achieve common objectives;

however, they do not necessarily improve business competitive advantage. The

collocation of ties is determined by the number of nodes (network size) and the

strength of the nodes’ involvement (network density). The number of nodes and

ties as well as their location relative to each other is important for communication

processes, transfer of ideas, information, knowledge and technology, and flow of

goods and capital within the network (Gargiulo and Benassi, 2000).

Relationships in an RTBN Watkins and Bell (2002) proposed three different categories reflecting tourism

managers’ experiences of business relationships that can be true in the context of

religious tourism. These were labeled as competition, cooperation, and

coopetition. In Figure 1, three different types of business relationships are

identified.

Figure1.Differenttypesofrelationshipsbetweenbusinesses(AdaptedfromBengtsonandKock,2000)


Competition Competition is a process of rivalry between interacting agents. It can be defined as

a dynamic state that happens when several actors in a specific area (market)

struggle for scarce resources, and/or produce and market similar products or

services that meet the same tourist need. Competitive approach implies on firms’

interdependence both horizontally and vertically. Competition is described as the

exchange relationships between existing and unchanging economic agents.

However, Schumpeter relates competition to internal industrial efficiency and to

the development of new sources of supply, new technology, and new types of

organization. In the long term, competition may lead to a monopolistic position of

a firm within a particular industry, instead of ‘perfect competition’ (Bengtsson

and Kock, 2000). Referring to horizontal interdependence, the competitive

approach emphasizes the search for above-normal profits realized through gaining

an advantageous position in an industry or by developing resources and distinctive

competences that enable a firm to offer superior products in relation to its

competitors. In vertical interdependence, the competitive approach implies on the

search for value in economic exchange. Interaction within a network is simple and

direct, and power and dependence are equally distributed among competitors

based on their positions in the network (Hunt, 2007). Hence, the business’s

structural position within the network becomes important. A business with a

superior position in a certain network would learn about competitive opportunities

sooner and use that knowledge in planning and executing competitive actions.

Cooperation Cooperation has been defined as a relationship in which individuals, groups and

organizations interact through the sharing of complementary capabilities and

resources, or leveraging these for the purpose of mutual benefit. From a supply

chain perspective, cooperation is considered as similar, complementary,

coordinated activities performed by firms in a business relationship to produce

superior mutual outcomes (Canegallo, Ortona, Ottone, Ponzano, and Scacciati,

2008). Successful cooperation is built on trust, commitment, and voluntary and

mutual agreement that can be established in a formal and documented contract or

an informal contract aimed at achieving common objectives. Thorgren, Wincent,

and Öttqvist (2009) examined the cause-effect relationships between inter-


organizational trust, relationship diversity and knowledge transfer, and corporate

entrepreneurship among networking firms. They showed a causal influence of

knowledge transfer and relational diversity on corporate entrepreneurship. The

main stimulus for cooperation is to adopt collective strategies for value creation.

Firms cooperate for achieving a common objective, sharing resources with other

competing actors, and learning or sharing organizational expertise (Tanghe,

Wisse, and vander Flier, 2010).

Coopetition Coopetition implies the simultaneous presence of both competition and

cooperation. Coopetition is the most mutually advantageous relationship for

competitors. Coopetition goes beyond the conventional rules of competition and

cooperation, in order to achieve the advantages of both. Literature suggested that

the majority of all new cooperative arrangements are between competitors (Luo,

2007). For example, multinational firms involve in complex and simultaneous

competitive cooperative relationships with global rivals. Through cooperative

relationships, global rivals work together to collectively enhance performance by

sharing resources and committing to common goals in value chain activities, at

the same time as they compete in other domains to improve their performance

(Chin, Chan, and Lam, 2008). Resource asymmetry among competitors

contributes more to cooperation. Coopetition creates value through cooperation

between competing organizations, aligning different interests toward a common

objective and helping to create opportunities for competitive advantage by

removing external obstacles and neutralizing threats. Coopetition strategy is a

multidimensional and multifaceted concept that supposes a number of different

forms and requires multiple levels of analysis. Coopetition encompasses both

social and economic issues related to inter-organizational interdependence. It

implies that firms can interact in rivalry owing to conflicting interests and at the

same time cooperate due to common interests (Tsai, 2002). To better compare such relationships, we provided a snapshot of attitudes to

cooperation, competition and coopetition. The attitudes are illustrated in Figure 2.


Figure2.Asnapshotofattitudestowardscooperation,competitionandcompetitionin(AdoptedfromLiu,2013)

In the context of religious tourism industry, the competitive behavior is

observed when individual tourism businesses try to maximize their own interests

and do not participate in collective action. The different self-interests are usually

in conflict with each other, and as a result, tourism businesses compete against

each other to best fulfill their own self-interests. The cooperative behavior is

based on an opposite rationale, that is, individual tourism businesses participate in

collective actions to achieve common goals. The coopetition relationships are

complex as they consist of two different logics of interaction. Tourism businesses

involved in coopetition are involved in a relationship that, on the one hand,

consists of competition due to conflicting interests and on the other hand, consists

Cooperation Positives:

-Complementary resources

-Faster innovation

Negatives:

-Issue of trust and commitment

-Fear of short-term opportunistic

behavior

Competition Positives:

Induces better innovation - -Dilutes anti-trust and anti-monopoly

Negatives:

-Loss of important sources

-Undermines the long-term viability

Multiple approaches in value chain

Coopetition Positives:

-A single approach is insufficient in

today’s business world

-Increases firm competitive advantage

Negatives:

Superficial and unpractical form - -Remains naming or evoking


of cooperation due to common interests. Compared to competition or coopetition,

cooperation is considered as the central stage for managing a religious tourism

destination. The cooperative relationships among the tourism organizations in

destination management exist at different levels with different forms. These

alternatives can be ranged from loosely connected relationships to those that are

very formal and integrated. Many times tourism organizations find no need for

them to enter into a formal and complex relationship if they intend to exchange

information about a particular issue or client. According to Wang and Krakover

(2008), the configurations of relationships can be manifested in four forms in a

continuum defined by various degrees of formalization, integration, and structural

complexity. These four forms of business relationships can be termed as:

affiliation, collaboration, coordination, and strategic networks (Figure 3). The four

forms of relationships follow a logical order of low to high formalization,

integration and structural complexity. 1. Affiliation is the most informal linkage among the tourism organizations,

and can be used most easily. It indicates an initial level of trust and

commitment among the tourism organizations and is better maintained

when linkages between tourism organizations are made person-to-person

rather than organization-to-organization. In other words, tourism

organizations affiliated with each other continue to operate independently

while supporting one another through the exchange of information,

endorsements, and making referrals, usually on an informal and ad-hoc

basis. 2. Coordination allows otherwise autonomous tourism organizations to align

their activities to support events or services by implementing common

tasks. The integration of staffs or activities is minimal and tied to the

accomplishment of certain tasks. Policies and procedures are relatively

informal. Coordination focuses on the ability of stakeholders to pursue

their individual organizational objectives better by arranging their

activities with the activities of other compatible organizations and by

aligning self-interest with others’ interests. An example of coordination

relationships in a destination is events at which tourism businesses

coordinate their activities and contribute to the common activities in

different forms such as ideas, manpower, and even financial contributions.

Such coordination may include two tourism organizations sharing


information about the activities of a program, deciding to change their

program content in order to better serve their common customers. Hotels

may provide meeting space and accommodation services; attractions may

provide sightseeing opportunities; restaurants may provide complementary

dining experiences; and transportation companies may offer easy access to

various locations in the destination for the tour group. Hence, all the

stakeholders coordinate with each other to achieve the common goal:

selling the destination. 3. In collaboration, tourism organizations need to go beyond coordinating

their operations around a certain event or practical goal. They want to

develop a joint strategy or common set of strategies for working

collectively toward a shared purpose. They develop a formal plan for

working together. These relationships are defined through contracts or

other formal agreements. In fact, collaboration is considered as a

formalized arrangement between two or more complementary entities for

the purpose of securing a longer-term business advantage. Collaboration is

more formalized and requires a longer-term commitment. In a

collaborative relationship, each organization wants to help not only

themselves but also their partners to become better at what they do. 4. Strategic networks are more formal structures that integrate the shared

vision of all tourism organizations involved and take a system orientation

in destination management. There are two kinds of networks in a certain

destination, and they vary based on the types of participating organizations

in the network. Horizontal networks involve organizations that provide

similar services such as the local hotels and motel associations, and

vertical networks involve organizations offering different services such as

the marketing campaigns. Strategic networks are integrated management

systems that seek to improve service delivery by broadening or deepening

the scope of services available in the destination to the tourists. Strategic

networks emphasize the importance of the network itself in successfully

managing the destination. In sum, affiliation, coordination, collaboration and strategic networks are

considered as the cooperative processes that happen in tourism destination

management. These different forms of cooperative relationships are built upon

each other along a continuum, that is, when the continuum of the cooperative


relationship moves from affiliation to strategic networks, it also moves from a low

level to a high level of organizational integration which requires a more formal

and complex relationship with each other.

Figure 3. Relationships among businesses in tourism industry (AdoptedfromWangandKrakover,2008)

Discussion This paper has emphasized the importance of effective networking in the religious

tourism businesses. A competitive advantage is achieved by merging the

overlapping products and services of local businesses. It is necessary to develop

business networks in the religious tourism in order to create a coherent

experience, accommodation and restaurant services around religious tourist

attractions. The literature review suggested that three types of business

Low High Formality

Complexity

Integration

Strategic networks Seeking long-term shared vision or strategy for the destination; system approach for achieving destination success

Collaboration Keeping a long-term advantage through developing joint strategies toward shared purposes; strong commitment to destination management efforts

Coordination Tracking individual business goals through coordinating activities with other compatible businesses; aligning self-interests with other’s interests

Affiliation Supporting one another through informal exchange of information, endorsements and referrals; personal relationship importance

Coopetition

Competition

Cooperation


relationships may be found in an RTBN, namely, cooperation, competition, and

coopetition. A tourism business may involve in these different relationships at the

same time in order to defend its position in a business network. However,

literature asserted that cooperation generates more business efficiency in using a

destination’s limited resources, while coopetition is efficient in handling both

cooperation and competition between businesses. In this framework, four

cooperative processes can be observed. These processes are affiliation,

coordination, collaboration and strategic networks which differ from each other in

terms of formality, complexity and integration. On a continuum starting from

affiliation, the level of formality, complexity and integration is low. On the other

side of the continuum, there are strategic networks with high level of formality,

complexity and integration. In affiliation, two or more tourism businesses are

loosely connected with each other, usually informally, because of their similar

interests. In coordination, autonomous tourism businesses align activities, sponsor

certain events, or deliver tourism services in pursuit of compatible goals. In

collaboration, businesses work collectively through common strategies. In

strategic networks, all the tourism businesses engaged in the network have a

shared vision and take a system orientation to achieving group objectives through

consistent strategy and concerted efforts. These processes reflect the extent to

which tourism businesses work together to achieve their objectives and explain

much of the inter-organizational activities taking place in a religious tourism

destination.

ReferencesAureli, S. and Forlani, F. (2016), The importance of brand architecture in business networks,

Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 19(2), 133-155.

Bengtsson, M. and Kock, S. (2000), Coopetition in business networks-To cooperate and compete simultaneously, Industrial Marketing Management 29 (5), 411-426.

Canegallo, C., Ortona, G., Ottone, S., Ponzano, F . and Scacciati, F. (2008), Competition versus co-operation: Some experimental evidence. Journal of Socio-Economics, 37 (1), 18-30.

Chin, K. S., Chan, B. L. and Lam, P.T. (2008), Identifying and prioritizing critical success factors for co-opetition strategy. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 108 (4), 437-454.

Francis, L. J., Williams, E., Annis, J., and Robbins,M. (2008). Understanding cathedral visitors: Psychological type and individual differences in experience and appreciation. Tourism Analysis, 13(1), 71-80.

Gargiulo, M. and Benassi, M. (2000), Trapped in Your Own Net? Network Cohesion, Structural Holes, and the Adaptation of Social Capital, Organization Science, 11(2), 183-196.


Gulati, R. (2007), Managing Network Resources. Alliances, Affiliations and Other Relational

Assets. Oxford University Press.

Hughes, K., Bond, N. and Ballantyne, R. (2013), Designing and managing interpretive experiences at religious-tourism sites: Visitors' perceptions of Canterbury Cathedral. Tourism Management, 36, 210-220.

Hunt, S. D. (2007), Economic growth: Should policy focus on investment or dynamic competition? European Business Review, 19 (4), 274-291.

Lakshman, C. (2012), Attributional Assumptions of Organizational Schools of Thought: Classification, Evaluation and Managerially Relevant Knowledge, European Management Review, 9, 153-167.

Lemmetyinen, A. (2010), The coordination of cooperation in tourism business networks, Turku School of Economics.

Liu, R. (2013) Cooperation, competition and coopetition in innovation communities, Prometheus: Critical Studies in Innovation, 31(2), 91-105.

Luo, Y. (2007), A coopetition perspective of global competition. Journal of World Business, 42 (2), 129-144 .

Osarenkhoe, A. (2010), A study of inter-firm dynamics between competition and cooperation-A coopetition strategy, Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management, 17(3/4), 201-221.

Pillai, K. G. (2006), Networks and competitive advantage: a synthesis and extension, Journal of Strategic Marketing, 14 (2), 129-145.

Raj, R., and Morpeth, N. D. (2007). Religious-tourism and pilgrimage festivals management: An international perspective. Wallingford, Oxfordshire: CABI Publishing.

Rinschede, G. (1992), Forms of religious tourism, Annals of Tourism Research, 19, 51-67.

Scott, N., Cooper, C. and Baggio, R. (2008), Destination networks, Four Australian cases, Annals of Tourism Research, 35(1), 169-188.

Seaton, A. V. and Bennett, M. M. (2004), The marketing of tourism products: concepts, issues, and cases, Thomson Publications: London.

Tanghe, J., Wisse, B. and vander Flier, H. (2010), The role of group member affect in the relationship between trust and cooperation, British Journal of Management, 21 (2): 359-374.

Thorgren, S., Wincent, J. and Öttqvist, D. (2009), A cause-effect study of inter-firm networking and corporate entrepreneurship: Initial evidence of self-enforcing spirals. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship 14 (4), 355-373.

Tsai, W. (2002), Social structure of coopetition within a multiunit organisation: Coordination, competition and intra-organisational knowledge sharing, Organisation Science, 13 (2), 179-190.

Wang, Y. and Krakover, S. (2008), Destination marketing: competition, cooperation or coopetition?, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20(2), 126-141.

Watkins, M. and Bell, B. (2002), The experience of forming business relationships in tourism, International Journal of Tourism Research, 4, 15-28.

a typol ogy of strategic relationsh ips in re ligious t...

Documents