Validation of Petrochemical Company Observatory Model in Large–Level (Case Study: Persian Gulf Petrochemical Industries Co.)

Document Type : Research Article (with mixed approaches)

Authors
Ali Abdali 1
Gholamreza Goodarzi 2
Tahmours Sohrabi 1
1 Department of Management, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2 Department of Management, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran - Imam Sadiq University
10.48308/jpap.2020.96765
Abstract
Purpose: Managers have always sought to predict the future of the company so that they may take an effective step in building or changing the future. This has led scholars in various fields to look for solutions to overcome the growing uncertainty phenomenon, with a particular focus on foresight and future studies. The purpose of the research is to increase the ability of companies to predict the future of the petrochemical industry and validation of different dimensions of the macro-level observatory model.
Methodology:  This research is of mixed method, Interviewed in a qualitative section of managers with more than ten years in petrochemical industry and continued until the theoretical saturation, that included 20 interviews. The statements extracted from the interviews were extracted using the Charmaz approach and analyzed by MAXQDA software. The statistical population comprises 462 managers of the Persian Gulf Petrochemical Industries Company. The number of samples was determined by the Cochran formula at the error rate of 1%, 80 individuals. In the quantitative part, a researcher-made questionnaire was distributed among 90 managers of different companies in different levels, finally, 82 questionnaires were analyzed for analysis. Factor analysis was performed using SPSS and WarpPLS software for quantitative data analysis.
Findings and Results: The Petrochemical Industry Observatory model was presented in the form of 7 main concepts, 21 axial concepts and 127 propositions. The validity of the developed model was measured in this respect the dimensions of the observatory model were confirmed. Model dimensions and significance coefficient for each of the dimensions of the macro level of the petrochemical industry include: Political (0.791), economic (0.952), environmental (0.596), social (0.402), technological (0.720), legal (0.842), and international (0.682). The identified dimensions of the macro level of the petrochemical industry as observatory data will lead to more knowledge and wisdom in order to make better decision makers.
Keywords
Observatory
Futures Studies
Petrochemical industries
Validation
  1. Aguilar, FJ. (1967). Scanning the business environment. New York: Macmillan.
  2. Alizadeh Kordabad, R., Khodaei Mahmoudi, R. & Momen, R. (2016). An integrated model of scenario-based programming and presumptive planning for future studies and sustainable planning in the field of energy, Quarterly Journal of Policy Studies and Energy Planning, 2(2), 7-32. (In Persian)
  3. Azar, A., Rahnavard, F. & Mosalmani, G. (2016). A Model for Designing Industrial Strategy: The Case of Petrochemical Industry, Quarterly Journal for Management and Development Process, 28(4), 61-90. (In Persian)
  4. Calof, J., Richards, G. & Smith., J. (2016). Science, Technology and Innovation Studies, Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge, Chapter 11, Foresight Competitive Intelligence and Business Analytics for Developing and Running Better Programmes, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-25628-3.
  5. Conteh, C. (2014). Canadian public administration in the 21st century. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Retrieved from ProQuest database.
  6. Dadkhah, S., Bayat, R., Fazli, S., Tork, E. K., & Ebrahimi, A. (2018). Corporate foresight: developing a process model. European Journal of Futures Research, 6(1), 1-10. 
  7. DanaiFard, H. (2012). Designing a National Observatory for Political and Management Studies in the Islamic Republic of Iran: Theoretical Wisdom, Operational Conceptualization and Challenges, Quarterly Journal of Science and Technology, 4(4), 13-24. (In Persian)
  8. Farhangi, A., Karoubi, M. & Alvaziri, S. (2015). Classical Grounded Theory; Descriptive Proposed Generation Theory of the Permissible Identity Gravity Center for Iranian Health Tourism. Journal of Business Management, 7(1), 75-86.
  9. Forster, B. (2014). Technology foresight for sustainable production in the German automotive supplier industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 92, 237-248..
  10. Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory, Aldine Publishing Company. Chicago.
  11. Glaser, B. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436-445.
  12. Goodarzi, G. R., Azar, A., Azizi, F. & Babaei Meybodi, H. (2016). Providing the proposed regional prospecting framework as an interdisciplinary field of study: the study document, the development document of Yazd province, Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities, 8(2), 133-155. (In Persian)
  13. Hasangholipour, H., Gholipour, A., ghazimahaleh, M. M. & Arbatani, T. R. (2010). Requirements, necessities and mechanisms of knowledge commercializing in Management Schools/ Faculties. Journal of business Management, 2(6), 41-61. (In Persian)
  14. Hasrati, Mostafa. (2006). an Introduction to the Qualitative Method of Foundation Data Theory, Journal of Language and Linguistics, 2(3), 75-86.
  15. Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2003). The dynamic resource-based view: Capability lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 997–1010.
  16. Hendry J. (2000). Strategic decision making, discourse and strategy as social practice. J Manag Stud; 37, 955-77.
  17. Højland, J. and Rohrbeck, R. (2018). The Role of Corporate Foresight in Exploring New Markets: Evidence from 3 Case Studies in the BOP Markets, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, January, pp. 1-13.
  18. Johnson G, Scholes K, Whittington R. (2008). Exploring corporate strategy, 8th edition. Prentice Hall.
  19. Kalaki, Hassan. (2009). Fundamental theory as a method of theorizing, called cultural research, 3(6), 119-140.
  20. Karimi, M. (2015). A new generation of oil contracts and the need to create a "technology observatory" center in the oil industry, Research Institute of Petroleum Industry, 137 21-24. (in Persian)
  21. Khanifar, Hussein and Nahid, Muslim. (2017). Principles and foundations of qualitative research methods, Negahe Danesh, Iran, Tehran. (in Persian)
  22. Kremer PD, Symmons MA. (2015). Mass timber construction as an alternative to concrete and steel in the Australia building industry: a PESTEL evaluation of the potential. Int Wood Prod J, 6(3), 138–47.
  23. Kumar, D. & Kumar, D. (2018). Sustainable Management of Coal Preparation. Appendix II - The Role of PESTEL Analysis, 415–419.
  24. Mehr Al-Hassani, M.H., Haghdoust, A.A., Dehnouyeh, R., Abolhajlaj M., Emami, M. (2016). Providing a proposed framework for monitoring the health system, Iranian Journal of Epidemiology, 12, 1-6. (In Persian)
  25. Noruzi, H. & Movahedifar, E. (2015). Research Methodology Thesis Writing for Management Students: With Warp PLS Software, Mehraban Nashr, Tehran, Iran. (In Persian)
  26. Panagiotou, N. (2013). Forces driving change in medical diagnostics, Clinica Chimica Acta, 415, 31–34.
  27. Ramadan, W. A. (2017). Corporate Future Foresight in Government: A necessity or a luxury?, Thesis. Rochester Institute of Technology. Accessed from, Rochester Institute of Technology, RIT Scholar Works.
  28. Rohrbeck R, Gemu¨nden HG. (2011). corporate foresight: its three roles in enhancing the innovation capacity of a firm. Technol Forecast Social Change, 78(2), 231–243
  29. Rohrbeck R. (2010). Corporate Foresight Towards a Maturity Model for the Future Orientation of a Firm, Dissertation Technische Universita¨t Berlin, Springer Heidelberg Dordrecht London New York.
  30. Rohrbeck, R., Battistella, C., & Huizingh, E. (2015). Corporate foresight: An emerging field with a rich tradition. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 101, 1–9.
  31. Rupsiene, L. & Pranskuniene, R. (2010). The variety of grounded theory: Different versions of the same method or different methods? Social Sciences, 4(70), 7-19.
  32. Song, J., Sun, Y. & Jin, L. (2017). PESTEL analysis of the development of the waste-to-energy incineration industry in China, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 80, 276–289.
  33. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, 2nd Edition, Sage. Thousand Oaks, CA.
  34. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, 2nd Edition, Sage. Thousand Oaks, CA.
  35. Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
  36. Vecchiato R, Roveda C. (2010). Foresight in corporate organisations, Technol Anal Strat Manag, 22(1), 99–112.
  37. Voros, J. (2003). A generic foresight process framework, Foresight, 5(3), 10–21.
  38. Wyrwicka, M. K. & Erdeli. O. (2018). Strategic Foresight as the Methodology of Preparing Innovation Activities. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 2, 338-350.
  39. Yuksel I. (2012). Developing a multi-criteria decision making model for PESTEL Analysis, International Journal of Business and Management, 7(24), 52-66.