Value Creation in Tourism Network Systems

Valentina Ndou Giuseppina Passiante

e-Business Management School,

ISUFI - Università degli Studi di Lecce. Italy valentina.ndou@cclab.unile.it

passiant@mailing.unile.it

Abstract

Networks are assumed to enhance tourism small firms’ performance and competitiveness. Research indicates that there are different sources of values that could derive from these networks such as cost and time efficiency, quality improvement, flexibility and innovation. However, in most cases, these values are associated to a general framework of what Information Communication Technologies (ICT) and a network model are supposed to offer for small and medium enterprises (SME) and to its participating actors. Little, isolated empirical research has been conducted regarding the real value participating firms could appropriate and create. This paper reports on findings of an empirical research aimed to measure and investigate the value that single tourism enterprises could create and/or appropriate by participating in network tourism systems. The perceptions of small medium tourism enterprises (SMTE) regarding the value sources that could derive from their participation in network systems are also reported.

Keywords: Network tourism systems, Value Creation, Small and medium tourism enterprises.

1 Introduction

A wide array of studies on SME has widely identified and acknowledged networks as viable and relevant models for competitiveness and sustainability of SME. It has been argued that through accessing and utilizing external resources in the network, SME can overcome some of the assumed disadvantages of small size, limited resources, skills and limited technology upgrade. Economies of scales and scope could also derive from collaboration and cooperation processes among network firms. Especially in the tourism sector, a network approach is paramount for managing the diversity and heterogeneity of tourism products, usually provided by a mix of interdependent actors. Networks are configured as complex systems of enterprises where each single enterprise realizes a small part of the total service or product, and contributes in increasing the total value delivered (Passiante, Andriani, 2000). We use the term network systems in this paper to refer to a system thinking approach which viewed interrelated elements as a whole and place the emphasis not only on the elements, but also on the interactions between the elements. In this view network systems could

play an important role for tourism competitiveness. Currently, a large number of network collaborative initiatives have emerged in the tourism domain, searching to bring together firms, resources, partners and suppliers in an integrated tourism system.

Research has provided strong evidence about the benefits and value that derive from these networks (Buhalis, 2002; Gretzel and Fesenmaier, 2001; Werthner, 1999). Benefits range from reductions in time and costs, because of the integration, distribution, promotion, and commercialisation of destination tourism supply, to an increased flexibility and responsiveness of the systems and to a greater openness to new actors, services, and technologies. However, most of the benefits and values are discussed and analysed at a macro-economic level, focusing on how these networks impact the tourism development. What happens at a micro-level, with the single enterprise is not generally analysed. In most cases advantages and benefits are framed in a general framework, that highlights what support ICTs and network model can offer to SME and other participating actors. While little, isolated empirical research has been conducted regarding the real value tourism enterprises can take from the establishment of tourism network systems. Furthermore, few researchers have incorporated and used new contemporary frameworks such as resource based view, network theory, intellectual capital view (Rastrollo, 2001; Pigneur, et al, 1996; Evans, 1999; Wang, et al, 2001; Gretzel and Fesenmaier, 2002) for identifying new forms of value. To fill this gap, this paper aims to examine and to provide empirical evidence regarding the value that single tourism enterprises could appropriate and create from participating in network tourism systems. The main research question that guides this paper is: How SMTE could create and appropriate value from participating in a network system?

To achieve the objectives of this paper, we have undertaken an extensive review of the main theoretical issues in investigating networking phenomenon in tourism and of the concept of value creation in the new economic landscape. Then, based on different research streams, a hypothetical research model has been formulated and a survey questionnaire has been designed that taps into the value creation construct. Assumptions and hypothetical model of the study have been analysed by using a series of descriptive and multivariate statistics processed into the Statistical Package for Social Sciences SPSS version 12.0 for Windows.

2 Theoretical Background

2.1 Networks in Tourism

The increasing rate of technological diffusion and the globalisation of markets put forth major challenges for SME competitiveness. Although, SME seems to have an advantage over large enterprises related to their agility, flexibility and innovating

potential, that increase their competitiveness and sustainability in complex environments. However, SMEs require the adoption of new business configurations based on the value creating potential of networks. The adoption of a network approach allows SME to expand the potential benefits originating from linking electronically with suppliers, customers, and other business partners, to engage in the wide array of domestic linkages between users and producers and with the knowledge producing sector (universities and R&D institutes) (Meyer-Stamer, 1998; Nadvi & Schmitz, 1994).

Technological and structural changes in recent decades have put SMTE under increase pressure (Marvel, 2001). They lag behind in their exploitation of the web (Gilbert et al., 1999). Research studies have identified that SMTE are challenged by such factors as costs of technology, reluctance to change, financial resources, human resources, standardization, compatibility and observability (Chamber and Parker, 1999; Buhalis, 2002). Well established networks could help SMTE to be competitive and benefit in global markets, due also to peculiar characteristics that tourism sector shares, such as: information/knowledge intensive businesses, modularity products, densely interconnected and heterogeneous settings. The theory behind networking is that a ‘network’ of close business relationships enables a company to become more competitive thus leading to an enhancement of competitive advantage (Spekman, 1996).

Many scholars and practitioners have and are stressing the need for interfirm collaboration and integrative solutions for SMTE (Buhalis, 1998). In particular they advocate the creation of network systems at the destination level. In these networks SMTE can highly collaborate horizontally, vertically and diagonally to achieve economies of scale and scope and develop further their skills and opportunities for competitive advantage (Dragan and Prosser, 2001). In consequence, many collaborative network systems have emerged in the tourism context, mostly at the destination level. But most of these initiatives consists mainly in providing and using a technology platform for collecting data regarding tourism attractions and products in central databases and then providing them by informational web-sites to the final customers. What we intend with tourism network systems is not simply the technological infrastructure used for provisioning information electronically. Instead, a tourism network system is the one that comprises a multiplicity of autonomous, interdependent, enterprises without physical borders of separation from the environment, that rely on the Internet infrastructure to integrate and exchange value (adapted from Passiante and Romano, 2000; Pollock, 2000).

These network systems are supposed to involve a pool of information that is shared among their members, to integrate information about destination tourism attractions, facilities and related services, with the aim of making them accessible for promotion and commercialization. The expected value and benefits for the participating firms are the enrichment of the flow of knowledge amongst partners, the access to complementary assets, con-joint actions for innovative processes and for enhancing

the destination reputation of the area. But, how and what type of value SMTE could really create and appropriate from these systems is the aim of this research paper.

2.2 Value Conceptualization

Before going through our research findings about the value creation potential of SMTE, it is useful to explain how we have defined “the value” in this paper. In this paper we have adopted an evolutive view of “value” that incorporates and taps on the intangible aspects of value.

In the traditional industrial organisation, economics value is defined in economic or monetary terms and has been expressed by financial metrics. The value chain framework of Porter (1985) was the conceptual foundation to explain this type of value. According to this framework the value is analysed at firm’s level and is added step by step in the firm’s core activities. Yet, despite the powerful insights and assumptions this framework provides, it has been somewhat criticized, mainly by the resource based view’ authors (Barney, 1991, Wernerfeldt, 1984. It has been criticized for its focus on the issues of value appropriation and distribution rather than on the issues of value creation (creation of new rent sources) (Moran, Ghoshal, 1999). In addition, firm differences are attributed to some factors such as rivalry between firms, changes in the competitive situation, market entries of new competitors, changes in the behaviour of competitors, or changes in the broader technological, economic and socio-cultural environment (Porter, 1980, 1991).

More recent changes, in particular the awareness about the relevance and the role of intellectual capital and intangible assets, have extended the perspectives to explain value creation and sources. Different authors (Norman and Ramirez, 1993; Allee, 2000) criticized the traditional mechanistic view of value, expressed mainly in monetary terms, and suggest to redefine “value” in accordance with the intangibles perspective and to view it as a dynamic and organic system. In the new conceptualization, “value” is defined as a tangible or intangible good, or service, knowledge, or benefit that is desirable or useful to its recipients so that they are willing to return a fair price (Allee, 2000). This broader way of defining and approaching value shifts us toward systems thinking and allows to appreciate differences and diversities, rather than being constrained by the conformity of the financial measures alone (Allee, 2000).

In this perspective the value creation processes expand to include the new value sources. The extended perspective of value is in accordance with the resource based view (RBV) of the firm which considers firms as a collection of resources bounded together in an administrative framework (Penrose, 1959). RBV recognizes that firms differ largely and sustainably in their resource endowments (Rumelt, 1984; Grant, 1991). The value creation is a result of different combinations of resources which can create new sources of value creation through the creation of new goods, new methods, new markets or new supply sources.

Following this view, Amitt and Zott (2001) found that the value creation could be expressed in terms of its four components: Efficiency, Complementarities, Novelty, and Lock in. They based their findings and analysis on a depth empirical research and on a very careful review of the main theoretical views of value creation and specifically: Porter’s value chain framework (1985); Schumpeter’s theory of creative destruction (1942); The resource based view of the firm (Barney, 1991; Penrose, 1959); Strategic network theory (Dyer and Singh, 1998, Gulati, 1998, 1999) and Transaction costs of economics (Coase, 1937, Williamson, 1975). Adapting Amitt and Zott’s framework of value creation sources, and consistently with the literature about networks, we have hypothesized that:

Hypothesis 1: A Tourism network approach could enhance the firm’s potential of value creation by:

1.a: offering advantages of costs reduction and operational efficiency, improving so firm’s efficiency. 1.b: facilitating learning, knowledge sharing and creation of new product/ services influencing so positively the learning and innovation processes. 1.c: allowing firms to offer better, qualitative and customized products as well as to promote trust and loyalty with customers, creating so lock in value.

1.d: allowing firms to access to a diversified array of information, resources, markets, and technologies, providing so complementary assets.

3 Methodology

Given the objectives and purpose of the study an e-mail survey has been applied to collect empirical, quantitative data. The sample of the study consisted of small and medium tourism firms which participate and/or use the functionalities of network tourism systems. In particular, the target population included small hotels, residences, touristy villages, guest houses, museums, historic buildings, restaurants.

Sample was constituted from different types small and medium firms of tourism sector, that were part of any Network system (extrapolated from databases of well-established destination systems) and which make use of some basic ICT tools (from databases those firms that have an e-mail or internet address were chosen).

Following these criteria a total of 600 firms have been extrapolated from three main destination systems databases and contacted. Out of the 600 firms surveyed, 134 compiled questionnaires were returned producing an initial response rate of 22,3 %. Among these 5 responses were considered inappropriate as they have missing data. Missing data refers to “information not available for a subject (or case), even if other information is available for that subject” (Hair et al., 1998, p. 38). Following Hair et al., (1998) recommendation, cases with missing data were dropped out form subsequent analyses. Therefore, the total usable questionnaires were 129 constituting an effective response rate of 21,5 %. This is a low rate in general, but it is a good one in the tourism domain, considering that in most cases the response rates of tourism

surveys are relatively low. Especially, low rates result from the surveys of small and medium tourism firms, as showed by Buhalis, Paraskevas (2002), which surveyed the use of application service providers in small and medium sized tourism enterprises in UK and Greece, obtaining a response rate of 25,2 %; or the survey of Sigala et al., (2001) for the effects of multimedia technologies on the SMTE employment patterns in UK, obtaining a response rate of 21,7 %; Louvieris et al., (2001) survey of web presence of London hotels produced a response rate of 26%. These low return rates are highly related with the fact that the population of surveys are in most cases very reluctant to provide empirical data. It is found that in general mail survey response rates are low and varies from 10-50 % depending upon the study design. The “Tailored Design Method” (TDM) provided by Dillman (2000) was used to guide the design and administration of e-mail surveys.

The final questionnaire submitted to the sample included a 3 pages structured questionnaire. The items were primarily derived from previously tested survey instruments to take advantage of well-tested psychometric measures (Straub 1989). In total 26 items were identified which were measured by using the Likert scale. Data provided have been analysed by using a series of descriptive and multivariate statistics processed into the Statistical Package for Social Sciences SPSS version 12.0 for Windows. Table 1 and 2 presents the main statistics performed for assuring reliability and validity of measures as well as for hypothesis testing.

Table1: Statistical data analysis

Items FL M SD 1 2 3 4 5

Efficiency (EFF) α = 0,957

Reduce costs for marketing, sale, promotion and distribution 0,858 3,86 0,91 7,7 15,4 26,9 29,2 20,8

Reduce time of transaction processing 0,864 3,88 0,95 1,5 5,4 30,8 30,8 31,5

Reduce operational costs; 0,798 3,1 1,25 13,9 17,7 29,2 23,8 15,4 Access to large number of products, services and information; 0,784 3,68 0,94 0 8,5 39,2 26,9 25,4

Aggregate the supply; 0,885 3,78 0,92 0 3,8 43,8 26,2 26,2 Reduce time required for development and delivery of product; 0,902 3,9 0,9 0,8 3,8 35,4 30,0 30,0

More informed decision making process; 0,896 3,5 1,1 6,2 14,6 28,5 29,2 21,5 Reduce asymmetry of information about goods and products; 0,823 3,6 0,9 0,8 6,9 40,8 30,8 20,7

Improve inventory management; 0,860 3,2 0,91 1,5 15,4 50,8 20,8 11,5

Improve yields 0,849 3,1 0,96 4,6 16,2 46,2 23,8 9,2

Lock In (LI) α =0,834

Benefit from the use of customer relationship programs of the system; 0,790 3,48 1,28 8,5 15,4 23,8 24,6 27,7

Direct interact with our customers; 0,810 3,62 1,05 3,2 10,0 33,8 29,2 23,8 Use personalized profiles to offer customized products; 0,815 2,9 1,36 23,1 13,1 28,5 20,0 15,3 More alternatives at our disposition to interrelate with the customers 0,877 3,95 1,04 2,3 7,0 23,8 29,2 37,7

Complementarities (CO) α = 0,874

Integration of different services and information; 0,858 2,89 1,2 7,7 27,6 40,8 16,2 7,7

Use and application of common technology 0,895 3,25 1,20 7,7 20,0 30,0 23,8 18,5 More easily accessibility to the complementary product 0,738 3,31 0,93 3,0 14,6 43,1 28,5 10,8 Use of relationships to offer information that are not ours; 0,725 2,93 1,17 14,6 16,2 40,8 16,9 11,5

Selling of other non-tourism products; 0,864 2,89 1,16 13,1 21,5 39,2 14,7 11,5

Novelty (NO) α = 0,923

Entering in new market segments; 0,870 4,06 1,19 0 3,8 27,7 28,5 40,0

Creation of new services and products; 0,832 3,36 0,95 8,5 16,2 26,9 29,2 19,2

Quality improvement; 0,832 3,0 1,25 18,5 13,9 31,5 22,3 13,8

New collaborating participants 0,859 3,32 0,94 3,8 13,8 43,1 23,8 15,5

New ways of doing business; 0,781 3,14 0,92 8,5 7,7 60,0 8,4 15,4 New distribution, advertisement and delivery channels 0,807 3,92 0,89 0 5,4 31,5 30,0 33,1

New content base; 0,864 3,86 0,95 0,8 6,2 34,6 24,6 33,8 Legend: α – Cronbach Alpha; FL – Factor loadings; M- Mean; SD- Standard deviation; 1,2,3,4,5 – Likert scale expressed in percentage.

Table 2: Discriminant Validity Results

EFF LI NO CO EFF Pearson correlation 0,845 LI Pearson correlation 0,618 0.824 NO Pearson correlation 0,617 0,598 0,835 CO Pearson correlation 0,780 0,529 0,782 0,819

4 Research Findings

4.1 Validity and Reliability

Before testing the hypothesis, we firstly checked the reliability and validity of data obtained. To test the reliability of the measures Cronbach’s alpha was used, as

suggested by Nunnally (1978). In order to claim reliability a commonly used threshold value for alpha is to be greater than .70 (Nunnally, 1978). We found a satisfactory level of alpha for all measures in the study. All alpha coefficients were ranged from 0,834 to 0,957, producing a fine result.

Discriminant and convergent validity of measures were tested by using the factor analysis method. Factor analysis is a multivariate statistical technique that helps the researcher to determine whether a certain set of items do or do not constitute a construct (Straub 1989). The factor loading of items is the principal measure for convergent and discriminate validity. For the data to have convergent validity it is required a high load of items on their associated factors (loading >.50), and each of the factors must load stronger on their associated factors rather than on any other factor (Chau and Tam, 1997). The convergent validity test was supported by performing Principal component factor analysis. Varimax with Kaiser normalization rotation technique were utilized to determine the factor expressed by items. All items loaded on the appropriate factor, with loadings typically ranging from .725 to .902 (Table 1). While the discriminant validity was assessed by comparing the average variance extracted (AVE) values associated with each construct with the correlations among constructs (Staples et al. 1999). In order to deem discriminant validity the square root of the AVE values should be larger than any other corresponding value of rows and columns (Staples et al., 1999). Table 2 presents the correlation matrix. As it can be seen from the table all square root of the AVE are larger than any other corresponding correlation coefficient of rows and columns. Based on these results we can claim that data are both valid and reliable.

4.2 Hypothesis testing

Value creation potential of firms were measured by asking the respondents to show their level of agreement in a scale from 1 to 5 (ranging from 1 - Strongly Disagree to 5 - Strongly Agree) with specific statements that tap on different value sources that could derive from networks. The value creation variable has been splitted in four principal factors, efficiency, innovation, lock-in and complementarities following Amitt and Zott (2001) framework regarding ‘e-Business Value sources’.

Efficiency -The measurement scale for efficiency consisted of 10 items. They reflect the perceived benefits that participating firms have in terms of cost reduction, transaction time, information. The statistical analysis shows that in general respondents tend to have positive effects by participating in the network. In particular they agree with the fact that being part of a virtual network reduce time of transaction (M=3,9, SD= 0,95), reduce marketing and distribution costs (M=3,86, SD= 0,91), gives them the possibility to aggregate the supply (M=3,78, SD= 0,92) as well as to access other products and services (M=3,68, SD=0,94). More than half of the surveyed firms attributed higher values to these issues (approximately 50-60 % of respondents), while some 25-30% tend to give an average importance to these issues.

Respondents tend to range in lower levels the items concerning operational costs (M=3,1, SD=1,25), inventory management (M=3,2, SD=0,91) and yields (M=3,1, SD=0,96). Only one third of surveyed firms attributed higher Likert value to these items.

Lock-In - The measurement scale for lock-in variable consisted in 4 items. Statistical analysis showed that in general respondents tend to highly agree that they can benefit from CRM activities (M=3,48, SD=1,28) have more alternatives in disposition to relate (M=3,95, SD=1,04) and to interact with customers (M=3,62, SD=1, 05). On the other hand respondents were not likely to highly agree with the possibility to provide more customized products and services (M=2,90, SD=1,36). The percentages of respondents who strongly agree with the possibility of customisation were relatively low, approximately 34 %, while 28, 5% were somewhat disinterested in the consequences related with this item, and about 36% didn’t agree with the fact that the network can help them to customize products and services. Thus, it can be generally interpreted that the tourism firms in this study showed that they have benefited from the new alternatives offered to them in terms of interaction and collaboration with customers, but they do not agree with the customisation possibilities.

Novelty - The novelty variable have been measured using 7 items that explain different types of novelties that can be realized by tourism firms. Respondents were asked to indicate their agreement level regarding the facilitations that are achieved by using the system. The survey demonstrates that in general firms were likely to agree with almost all items (means ranged from 3 to 4 for included items). Especially they highly agree with the items concerning the facilities created by the system for entering new markets (M=4,06, SD=1,19), for using new distribution channels (M= 3,92, SD=0,89), and for the possibility to add new content to their offers (M=3,86, SD=0,95). They also agreed with the opportunities that the network system could offer regarding the creation of new products and services (M= 3,36; SD=0,95), for quality improvement (M=3,0; SD=1,25), possibilities to collaborate and cooperate with other participants (M=3,32; SD=0.94) and the creation of new ways for doing business (M= 3,14; SD=0, 92).

Complementarities - The complementarity’s measurement scale consisted in 5 items which reflect the facilities created by tourism system to sell and to access other products. Based on the mean values for each item, respondents seem to agree that participating in a virtual network allows them to access, use and integrate others products and services. More specifically, they tend to agree that they can use a shared technology for putting their offers online (M= 3,25, SD = 1, 20), and also they can access more easily other products (M= 3.31; SD=0,93) and integrate them in their offer trying to make a complete package for their customers. Additionally, they also agreed that participating in a network facilitates the possibilities to relate with others and offer more in-depth information (M=2.93, SD=1.17), to sell other products (tourism or non-tourism ones) (M = 2.89, SD=1,16), as well as to integrate different services and information.

5 Discussion of Results

Generally, the hypotheses proposed in this study were supported, with significant statistical values. Data show a clear trend toward innovation amongst participating firms and a high satisfaction with the possibilities they could exploit in terms of customer relationship, time and costs gains (efficiency).

By participating in network systems, firms reported to have more possibilities to relate with their customers and to sell their products worldwide. Although, small firms may not have internet web-sites, call centres or technological applications for relating with customers, they could benefit from the central CRM system of the network. The CRM system, that is able to distribute and share information about the customers to different participating firms, could help small firms to satisfy customers quite every time and with quite every service. Furthermore, the great majority of firms indicated that they have been able to use the system opportunities for entering in new markets, realizing new products/services, creating new contents and new solutions, as well as using new distribution channels.

Another widespread benefit is related to efficiency gains, in terms of time and distribution costs. Respondents attributed high value to the items related to these issues. The efficiency gains that result from the use of technology and participation in integrated networks is consistent with other studies and with assumptions that the most common benefits for SME to join a network are related to the economies of scale that could be created. This result obviously depends on the characteristics of the sample. Most of the respondents in the sample make some basic use of information technologies, in particular e-mail and internet to communicate and interact. So, the time they spend for communicating and interrelating with their counterparts is much lower than before when traditional communication medias are used.

Significant cost savings could also be obtained through the elimination of intermediaries. It has been estimated that the traditional distribution channels costs about 30% of the booking value of a hotel (Richer, O’Neill-Dunne, 1998). Today one of the most common uses of internet and ICT in travel sectors is for distribution reasons. On the other side, also customers search most of the travel services through internet, making travel services the top selling products in the internet.

The access to other services and products is more easily, so different types of information and services could be clustered according to customer needs. A lot of firms collaborate in order to have access to others resources, skills and knowledge they lack. The challenge for firms, in the current environment, is to specialize and create core capabilities and then exploit networking and collaboration for using and deploying other complementarities, in order to gain competitive advantage and to enhance customer value. In this research we found that firms tend to use network links to build integrated products and services, to access to specialized knowledge they lack, to sell other products (especially non related ones) through up-selling or cross-selling. What is more important for SME, is that they can use common technology tools without making substantial investments. In this way network links

allow participating firms to access complementary assets, to fill gaps in resources and capabilities.

Surprisingly, firms do not reported to have high effects as expected in their internal activities, such as operational costs, inventory management and personalization issues. This in part could be explained with the limited use of advanced ICT applications, which can be very powerful in lowering costs and facilitating internal activities. The improved efficiency in operational costs is more related to internal use of ICT applications that interrelate and integrate various departments and units within the single organization. On the other hand, similar to previous researches, respondents do not show to have a lot of benefits in products and services customisations.

The results of this research highlight the importance of the network approach for SMTE and suggest that effective networks could increase innovation and improve firm’s efficiency. A firm participating in a network may create greater value, since becomes able to improve the quality of products, to realize products and services more rapidly and with lower costs, to be more efficient in terms of time and costs and to be more customers centric.

6 Conclusions

In an increasingly flexible and uncertain market, an understanding of how tourism firms’ competitiveness can be enhanced and sustained is a fundamental issue. The focus of this research study was to investigate the SMTE tourism networks potential of value creation. The guideline of this study was that SMTE could create and appropriate much value when they become integral part of the network tourism systems.

Indeed the research findings provided support that tourism systems, organized following the logic of networks, could more effectively assist tourism firms in competing and in creating value. Network systems may help SMTE firms to enter in new markets, exploit externalities and gain efficiencies in internal and external activities. The participation of SMTE in tourism networks help them to enhance their ability to publish their structures to individual travellers worldwide, to persuade potential guests to choose and to provide them with unmatched online services. All this without requiring high technological investments. Especially a unique and recognized brand name helps firms to be recognized and to expand worldwide their business.

The findings of this paper provide useful implications both from theoretical and practical points of view. Basically, the study contributes to an enhancement of the current level of knowledge in the existing literature on tourism competitiveness and provides a first ever attempt (as far as we know) to test empirically the value creation potentialities of SMTE participating in network systems. From the practical point of view, the findings of this study could contribute to increase the awareness of tourism managers in being more proactive to the fast changing environment and in adopting

new business models, suitable for managing complex activities and processes inside and outside firm boundaries. Also, more attention must be paid to the interactions among different actors of the network, which could bring complementarities and new knowledge that are necessary for enhancing competitive advantages.

References

Amit, R., Zott, C. (2001). Value Creation in eBusiness. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6): 493-520.

Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management 17 (1): 99–120.

Buhalis, D. (2002). eTourism: Information Technology for Strategic Tourism Management. Pearson (Financial Times/Prentice Hall), London.

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, 2nd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.

Dargan, L. & Prosser, G. (2001). Towards an E-Business Strategy for SMEs in the Irish Tourism Industry. 31st European Small Business Seminar Dublin (September).

Grant, R.M. (1991). The Resource Based Theory of Competitive Advantage: Implications for Strategy Formulation. California Management Review, 33 (3): 114-135.

Gretzel, U. & D.R. Fesenmaier (2001). Defining internet readiness for the tourism industry: Concepts and case study in Werthner, H.& Bichler, M. (Eds.), Lectures in e-Commerce. Wien: Springer Verlag.

Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., and Black, W.C. (1998) Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th Edition, Prentice Hall College Division.

Louvieris, P., Jung, T.H., Pandazis, Y.N. (2001). Investigating the web presence of London hotels. Information communication technologies in Tourism. SpringerVerlag.

Meyer-Stamer, J. (1998). Group-Centered Approaches to the Diffusion of Eco-Efficient Production Practices: Successful Experiences from Brazil. Bonn: GTZ-Pilot Programme for the Promotion of Environmental Management.

Nadvi, K. and Schmitz, H., (1994). Industrial clusters in less developed countries: a review of experiences and research agenda’, Discussion Paper 339, Brighton: Institute of Development.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. 2nd Edition, McGraw Hill, NY. Sigala, M., Airey, P. Jones, Lockwood, A., (2001). Investigating the effect of

multimedia technologies on the employment patterns in small and medium tourism and hospitality enterprises in the UK, Information communication technologies in Tourism. SpringerVerlag.

Straub, D.W. (1989). Validating Instruments in MIS Research, MIS Quarterly, 13(2):147-166.

Werthner, H. and Klein, S., (1999). Information Technology and Tourism - A challenging relationship. Springer. New York.