Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer
BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT STUDIES:
AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
Published: 2020-09-25

EVALUATION OF HUMAN ASSET SPECIFICITY: DETERMINATION OF IN-SERVICE TRAINING METHOD IN AN ENTERPRISE BY AHP METHOD

Asisst. Prof. Dr., Okan University
Human Asset Specificity Training Asset Specificity

Abstract

1. LITERATURE

1.1. RESEARCH SUBJECT
In transaction costs theory, asset specificity stands out among the factors affecting transaction costs. Human asset specificity can be considered as an element that is included in the asset specificities of Williamson's (1981) studies and should be emphasized. The fact that human asset specificity includes human factors can be considered as the reason for the preference for this study. Other specificities are also discussed in this study in order to make a conceptual comparison. Within the framework of this study, the scope of the research was established based on the human asset specificity, which is included in the asset specificities of Williamson (1981) and other authors studies. Consequently, site-specificity and physical asset specificity (and other specificities in the classification) contained in the studies above were excluded from the scope of this study.
1.2. RESEARCH PURPOSE AND IMPORTANCE
The purpose of the study, associated with the title of the study, is based on the in-service training method in an enterprise to evaluate the human asset specificity, which is the focal point of the study. In this context, determining the in-service training method with the AHP method comes into question in terms of the enterprise addressed. Therefore, the contribution is made by revealing which training method is suitable for the enterprise.

1.3. CONTRIBUTION of the ARTICLE to the LITERATURE
The literature review of the subject reveals that there are several sources on transaction costs theory, which is the main framework of the study. The table composed as a result of the literature review represents that each study of the stated table fundamentally focuses attention on three main specificities. These specificities are listed as site-specificity, physical asset specificity and human asset specificity. The other three specificities, dedicated asset specificity, temporal (spatial) specificity and brand name capital specificity are not emphasized in most of the studies. As distinct from site-specificity and physical asset specificity; human asset specificity that is focused in this study encapsulates knowledge and skills (Jobin, 2008: 448), training and learning by doing (Kang, 2002: 32 as cited in Bingöl, 2017: 15) and similar human subjects. Consequently, as it was seen as more susceptible to in-service training than other specificities, human asset specificity was preferred for this study.
2. DESIGN AND METHOD

2.1. RESEARCH TYPE
In the study, AHP (analytical hierarchy process/process) was used as the method. The aim set out for the AHP method is to determine the in-service training method and is expressed with the title of "Training" in representing the hierarchical structure.
2.2. RESEARCH PROBLEMS
The main point within the framework of the research was the settlement of the appropriate in-service training method of the enterprise and the application of a suitable technique to effectuate the objective. The purpose of the study, associated with the title of the study, is based on the in-service training method in an enterprise to evaluate the human asset specificity, which is the focal point of the study. In this context, determining the in-service training method with the AHP method comes into question in terms of the enterprise addressed. Therefore, the contribution is made by revealing which training method is suitable for the enterprise. It can be emphasized again that the method for showing this contribution is AHP. It should be remarked that, by using the data of 2019, a certain period is discussed. Across the study, the full name of the enterprise addressed based on the case study is omitted.
2.3. DATA COLLECTION METHOD
Open-ended questions, which are useful in forming the questions, aiming to discover the unknown and enabling to learn the details of people's thoughts, and intending to get comprehensive information on a subject with little information (Hagan, 2005 as cited in Sevinç, 2011: 236; Sevinç, 2011: 235, 236), were also activated as a technique in the relevant step of the research.
3. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. FINDINGS as a RESULT of ANALYSIS
In-service training method in an enterprise is utilized in the evaluation of human asset specificity, which is focused on the study. Accordingly, the selection of the in-service training method by AHP method from the concerned enterprise emerges. As a result, the contribution is made by appointing which training is suitable for the enterprise. Within the framework of AHP, which was selected as the method, this study was carried out using 2019 data. The name of the enterprise dealt with based on the case study is omitted. Published sources were taken as a basis for the alternatives used in the study. The primary source informing the criteria used in the study is the manager of the relevant enterprise responsible for education. Thereby, based on face-to-face interviews, evaluations were put forward with the help of questions revealed with open-ended questionnaires. The AHP method handled with all these alternatives and criteria, and has been analyzed with the 2.4.0-RC1 version of the Super Decisions Software. In line with the relevant solutions, rotation, delegation of authority, on-the-job training, orientation and internship rankings have been eventuated respectively in terms of the need for in-service training. The emerging results were shared with the relevant manager of the enterprise.
3.2. DISCUSSING the FINDINGS with the LITERATURE
From a general perspective, transaction costs, the main framework discussed in the literature section of the study, have brought a diverse range of sources to the literature. Furthermore in the case of asset specificity, human asset specificity comes out as the main point of this study. Here, among the three specificities discussed in the literature review, human resource specificity stands out, especially considering human factors. Finally, handling of this case has been addressed within the framework of the study and has contributed to the literature. Other specificities were also included in the study in order to deal with human asset specificity comparatively.
4. CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATION AND LIMITATIONS

4.1. RESULTS of the ARTICLE
In line with the relevant solutions, rotation, delegation of authority, on-the-job training, orientation and internship rankings have been eventuated respectively in terms of the need for in-service training. The emerging results were shared with the relevant manager of the enterprise.
4.2. SUGGESTIONS BASED on RESULTS
It can be stated that the issues of site specificity and physical asset specificity (as well as other specificities classified) can be addressed for future studies. It is possible to make assessments with different asset subjects for future studies.
4.3. LIMITATIONS of the ARTICLE
Within the framework of this study, the scope of the research was established on the basis of the human asset specificity which is included in the asset specificities of Williamson (1981). Consequently, site specificity and physical asset specificity covered in these studies were excluded from the scope of this study. Additionally, within the scope of education, in-service training methods are discussed in this study.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Akdeniz, Ekin (2019), "İşlem Maliyetleri Kuramı: Varlık Özgüllüğü Dikey Bütünleşmeyi Etkiler mi?”, SOBİDER Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Yıl: 6, Sayı: 38, ss. 139-145. DOI: 10.16990/SOBIDER.5024
  2. Aktürk, Büşra (2018). “Sağlık Hizmetlerinin İşlem Maliyeti Yaklaşımı Çerçevesinde İncelenmesi: Aile Sağlığı Merkezleri ile Hastanelerin Karşılaştırılması”, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İzmir Katip Çelebi Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Sağlık Yönetimi Ana Bilim Dalı, İzmir.
  3. Anderson, David R., Dennis J. Sweeney, Thomas A. Williams, Jeffrey D. Camm, R. Kipp Martin (2008). Quantitative Methods for Business, 11th Ed., South-Western Cengage Learning.
  4. Berçin, Özgür (2016). "Firma Faaliyet Sınırları Problemi için Bütünleşik Bir Yaklaşım Geliştirilmesi", Selçuk Üniversitesi Mühendislik, Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, Cilt: 4, Sayı: 1, ss. 30-39. DOI: 10.15317/Scitech.2016116093
  5. Bingöl, Ahmet (2017). “Üretme veya Satın Alma Karar Etmenlerine Örgüt Kuramları Açısından Bakış: Türk Otomotiv, Gıda ve Beyaz Eşya Üreticilerinde Bir Araştırma”, Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İşletme Ana Bilim Dalı, Eskişehir.
  6. Commons, John R. (1934). Institutional Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.
  7. Düden, Sibel (2012). “Dağıtım Kanalı İşlem Maliyetlerinin Fırsatçılık ve İşbirliği Açısından Değerlendirilmesi: Türkiye Otomotiv Sektörü Dağıtım Kanalı Üzerine Bir Uygulama”, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Akdeniz Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İşletme Ana Bilim Dalı, Antalya.
  8. Erdoğan, Dilek (2019). “Sözleşme Süresinin Belirlenmesi: İşlem Maliyeti Teorisi Bakışıyla Yer Hizmeti Sözleşmeleri Üzerine Ampirik Bir Araştırma”, Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 18, Sayı: 2, ss. 623-637. DOI: 10.21547/jss.439257
  9. Fill, Chris, Elke Visser (2000). "The Outsourcing Dilemma: A Composite Approach to the Make or Buy Decision", Management Decision, Vol: 38, No: 1, pp. 43-50. DOI: 10.1108/EUM0000000005315
  10. Furubotn, Eirik G., Rudolf Richter (2005). Institutions and Economic Theory: The Contribution of the New Institutional Economics, Second Edition, The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
  11. Gürçaylılar-Yenidoğan, Tuğba (2013). "Yeni Kurumsal İktisat Geleneğinde İşlem Maliyeti Teorisinin Rolü ve Son Gelişmeler", Business and Economics Research Journal, Cilt: 4, Sayı: 2, ss. 109-134.
  12. Hagan, Frank E. (2005). Essentials of Research Merhods in Criminal Justice and Criminology, Pearson Education Inc, Boston, MA.
  13. Hwang, C. L., K. Yoon (1981). Multiple Attribute Decision Making, Methods and Applications, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg.
  14. Jobin, Denis (2008). "A Transaction Cost-Based Approach to Partnership Performance Evaluation", Evaluation, Vol: 14, Issue: 4, pp. 437-465. DOI: 10.1177/1356389008095487
  15. Joskow, Paul L. (1984). "Vertical Integration and Long Term Contracts: The Case of Coal Burning Electric Generating Plants", MIT Working Paper, No: 361, Department of Economics, Cambridge, Massacusetts.
  16. Joskow, Paul L. (2008). "Chapter 13 - Vertical Integration", Edited by: Claude Ménard, Mary M. Shirley, Handbook of New Institutional Economics, Springer, Berlin.
  17. Kang, D. K. (2002). "Ownership Concentration, Vertical Integration, and its Determinants in the Korean Corporation: How does Chaebol's Organization Affect Ownership Concentration and Vertical Integration", University of Kentucky.
  18. Karacasu, Murat (2007). "Kentiçi Toplu Taşıma Yatırımlarının Değerlendirilmesinde Karar Destek Modeli (ELECTRE Yöntemi) Kullanımı", 7. Ulaştırma Kongresi, 19-21 Eylül 2007, Kongre Sempozyum Bildiriler Kitabı, ss. 155-164, TMMOB İnşaat Mühendisleri Odası, İstanbul.
  19. Kartal, Neşe (2001). “İstanbul Deri Sanayi İşletmelerinde Eğitim İhtiyaçlarının Belirlenmesi ve Bir Araştırma”, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Kamu Yönetimi Ana Bilim Dalı, İnsan Kaynakları Yönetimi Bilim Dalı, İstanbul.
  20. Klein, Peter G. (2008). "Chapter 17 - The Make-or-Buy Decision: Lessons from Empirical Studies", Edited by: Claude Ménard, Mary M. Shirley, Handbook of New Institutional Economics, Springer, Berlin.
  21. Kutlu, Batuhan Safa, Yusuf Alper Abalı, Tamer Eren (2012). "Çok Ölçütlü Karar Verme Yöntemleri ile Seçmeli Ders Seçimi", Kırıkkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 2, Sayı: 2, ss. 5-25.
  22. Küçükyazıcı, Güneş (2009). “Dikey Bütünleşme Stratejisi ve Belirlenmesi için Bir Yaklaşım”, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Endüstri Mühendisliği Ana Bilim Dalı, İstanbul.
  23. Masten, Scott E. (1986). "The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: A Review Article", Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, Vol: 142, Issue: 2, pp. 445-451.
  24. Masten, Scott E., James W. Meehan Jr., Edward A. Snyder (1989). "Vertical Integration in the U.S. Auto Industry: A Note on the Influence of Transaction Specific Assets", Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Vol: 12, Issue 2, pp. 265-273. DOI: 10.1016/0167-2681(89)90059-0
  25. Masten, Scott E., James W. Meehan Jr., Edward A. Snyder (1991). "The Costs of Organization", The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Vol: 7, Issue: 1, pp. 1-25.
  26. Monteverde, Kirk, David J. Teece (1982). "Supplier Switching Costs and Vertical Integration in the Automobile Industry", Bell Journal of Economics, Vol: 13, No: 1, pp. 206-213. DOI: 10.2307/3003441
  27. Mroczek, Katarzyna (2014). "Transaction Cost Theory - Explaining Entry Mode Choices", Poznań University of Economics Review, Vol: 14, No: 1, pp. 48-62.
  28. Önder, Güler, Emrah Önder (2014). "Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci", Editörler: Bahadır Fatih Yıldırım, Emrah Önder, Operasyonel, Yönetsel ve Stratejik Problemlerin Çözümünde Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri, 1. Baskı, Dora Basım-Yayın Dağıtım, Bursa.
  29. Örücü, Edip, Sedat Yumuşak (2005). "Örgütlerde İşgören Eğitimi Üzerine Bir Alan Araştırması", Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 19, Sayı: 2, ss. 235-246
  30. Özgen, Hacer (2002). “İşlem Maliyetleri Teorisi: Sağlık Hizmetleri Sunumunda Sözleşme mi Yoksa Örgüt İçi Yapılanma mı?”, Amme İdaresi Dergisi, Cilt: 35, Sayı: 2, ss. 49-59.
  31. Rindfleisch, Aric (2020). "Transaction Cost Theory: Past, Present and Future", AMS Rev, Vol: 10, Issue: 1-2, pp. 85–97. DOI: 10.1007/s13162-019-00151-x
  32. Roy, B. (1968). “Classement et Choix en Presence de Points de vue Multiples (la Methode ELECTRE)”, Revue Française D’informatique et de Recherche Opérationnelle, Vol. 8, pp. 57–75.
  33. Sabuncuoğlu, Z. (1997). Personel Yönetimi: Politika ve Yönetsel Teknikler, Ezgi Kitabevi, Bursa.
  34. Sevinç, Bilal (2011). "7. Bölüm: Survey Araştırması Yöntemi", Editör: Kaan Böke, Sosyal Bilimlerde Araştırma Yöntemleri, Alfa Basım Yayım Dağıtım, İstanbul.
  35. Scott, W. Richard, Gerald F. Davis (2016). Organizations and Organizing: Rational, Natural, and Open System Perspectives, Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, London/New York.
  36. SuperDecisions (2020). "SuperDecisions", [Çevrim-içi: http://www.superdecisions.com/], Erişim tarihi: 02.09.2020.
  37. Şenkayas, Hüseyin, Haluk Hekimoğlu (2013). "Çok Kriterli Tedarikçi Seçimi Problemine PROMETHEE Yöntemi Uygulaması", Verimlilik Dergisi, Cilt: 2013, Sayı: 2, ss. 63-80.
  38. Teker, Özge (2012). “Dikey Bütünleşme Stratejisinin Belirlenmesinde İşlem Maliyeti Teorisi ve Kaynak Temelli Yaklaşımın Karşılaştırılması”, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Endüstri Mühendisliği Ana Bilim Dalı, Mühendislik Yönetimi Bilim Dalı, İstanbul.
  39. Vaidya, Omkarprasad S., Sushil Kumar (2006). "Analytic Hierarchy Process: An Overview of Applications", European Journal of Operational Research, Vol: 169, Issue: 1, pp. 1-29. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2004.04.028
  40. Williamson, Oliver E. (1975). Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications, New York: Free Press.
  41. Williamson, Oliver E. (1981a). "The Economics of Organization: The Transaction Cost Approach", American Journal of Sociology, Vol: 87, Issue: 3, pp. 548-577.
  42. Williamson, Oliver E. (1981b). "The Modern Corporation: Origins, Evolution, Attributes", Journal of Economic Literature, Vol: 19, Issue: 4, pp. 1537-1568.
  43. Williamson, Oliver E. (1983). "Credible Commitments: Using Hostages to Support Exchange", The American Economic Review, Vol: 73, No: 4, pp. 519-540.
  44. Williamson, Oliver E. (1985). The Economic Institutions of Capitalism, The Free Press, The Division of Macmillan Inc., New York.
  45. Williamson, Oliver E. (1991). "Comparative Economic Organization: The Analysis of Discrete Structural Alternatives", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol: 36, Issue: 2, pp. 269-296. DOI: 10.2307/2393356
  46. Williamson, Oliver E. (1996). The Mechanisms of Governance, Oxford University Press, New York.

How to Cite

AKDENİZ, E. (2020). EVALUATION OF HUMAN ASSET SPECIFICITY: DETERMINATION OF IN-SERVICE TRAINING METHOD IN AN ENTERPRISE BY AHP METHOD. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 8(3), 3123-3149. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v8i3.1562