This section has been dedicated to the results of the content analysis process in two parts of coding and concept analysis. All the sources were initially reviewed, and relevant resources were identified through coding. Various contents from different articles were incoherent, and each source and reference was viewed from a different angle in regards to environmental turbulence. In the coding process, each article and resource was assessed, and considering the general concept, parts of the text of the sources that were explicitly or implicitly related to the code were selected.
Based on the significance of each concept, a title was designated to the concept in the text, and the concept was included in the explanation of the relevant source. Afterwards and with further text encodings, the files were constantly reviewed and examined to determine whether the specified part was related to any of the assigned dimensions or whether a new subject had to be determined. These dimensions were reviewed and changed several times during the research. The coding steps are presented in
Table 1.
| Dimensions | Component | Sub-Component | Open Coding |
|---|
| Environmental dynamism | Market turbulence | Market dynamics | Change in customer preferences, customer's desire to search for new products, customer offers, speed and frequency of customer preferences change |
| Market complexity | The existence of various factors affecting the business market, the relationship between the various factors and elements affecting the business market, customer attention to price, customer durability and loyalty, the impact of a business decision on many factors, the importance of delivery time of goods and services For the customer, the importance of delivery of goods and services to the customer |
| Market predictability | The ability to predict changes in customer preferences, the ability to predict market changes, information available to predict market changes, available information to predict the change in customer preferences, the existence of a certain trend in the market changes |
| Technological turbulence | Technological dynamics | The degree of technological change, the amount of opportunity created by technological change, the feasibility of new ideas through technological change, innovative technologies, speed and frequency of technological change |
| Technological Complexity | The existence of several factors affecting technological change, the relationship between multiple factors and elements that affect technological change, the impact of a technological change on a large number of business factors |
| Technological predictability | The predictability of existing technology stability, the ability to predict new technology advances, available information to predict the state of the technology |
In the following section, parts of the content related to the component of market turbulence from the source text have been discussed.
Market turbulence reflects the rapid changes in the buyers’ preferences and encompasses a wide range of needs and demands, continuous entry and exit of the buyer through the market, and continuous emphasis on the provision of new products (
35). Furthermore, market turbulence refers to the extent to which the competitive market conditions of a company are unpredictable and may change over time (
32,
35). Market turbulence also refers to the extent and fluctuation in the customer mix, behaviors, and preferences (
36). In addition, market turbulence involves the changes in structure-related marketing operations, and not only the dynamics of the market, but also the market uncertainty (
37). As a result, there is the likelihood that the products and services offered by organizations may become incompatible with customers’ needs, thereby leading to the market competition that is caused by unstable markets. Market turbulence also leads to uncertain environments for organizational operations/activities and transformation strategies (
38). Similarly, the contents regarding the technological turbulence component of the source text have been partly discussed in the following section.
Technological turbulence shows the level of technological change in an industry (
39) and is defined as the degree of the changes associated with the product and process technology in an industry where an embedded company has also been defined (
40). A rapidly changing technological environment is characterized by short product development cycles and fast technological obsolescence (
41), which may create opportunities for companies to build superior competitive positions by changing or upgrading their products (
42), while also creating challenges (
43). In fact, technological turbulence leads to frequent alterations that urge companies to constantly keep up with and adapt to technological trends. Technological turbulence could be viewed as a threat to organizational operations as it is disruptive and creates unstable environments. As such, technological turbulence contributes to a sense of uncertainty (
44).
Figure 1 depicts the research model in the present study.
Conceptual environmental dynamism in pharmacies
The evaluation of the modeling of environmental dynamism in Iranian pharmacies was performed in two stages using the Smart-PLS3 software. Initially, the validity and reliability of the model were evaluated, followed by the examination of the structural model. Based on the validity and reliability criteria, the accuracy of the correlations in the measurement models was ensured. In addition, the correlations the structural section and GOF of the research model were assessed (
45).
The fit of measurement models is often determined based on the reliability and validity of the research structures. The Cronbach’s alpha is considered to be classic criterion for the measurement of reliability, which shows the correlations between a structure and the related indices. For the variables with a small number of questions, 0.7 is a reliable indicator of the alpha coefficient.
In addition to the Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability (CR) was used in the present study to determine the reliability of each structure. The main advantage of the CR criterion over the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is that the reliability of the structures is calculated in a non-absolute manner, but rather by the correlations between the structures. In the current research, the reliability of both criteria was used to measure the CR value, which was estimated to be above 0.7 for each structure, showing the intrinsic stability of the measurement models (
46). The combined stability values for the research structures were calculated to be higher than 0.8.
After examining the reliability criterion, the second criterion is the average variance extracted (
46), which showed the average shared variance between each construct with its indices and had to be higher than 0.5.
Table 2 shows the general criteria for the quality of the model. Accordingly, the values of each variable were defined to be above the threshold. Therefore, the appropriateness of the convergent validity and reliability status of the research model were confirmed.
| Variables | AVE | CR | Cronbach’s alpha |
|---|
| Dynamism | 0.51 | 0.94 | 0.93 |
| Market turbulence | 0.58 | 0.95 | 0.89 |
| Market dynamics | 0.96 | 0.98 | 0.96 |
| Market complexity | 0.87 | 0.95 | 0.93 |
| Market predictability | 0.95 | 0.98 | 0.97 |
| Technological turbulence | 0.69 | 0.95 | 0.94 |
| Technological dynamics | 0.97 | 0.98 | 0.97 |
| Technological complexity | 0.92 | 0.98 | 0.97 |
| Technological predictability | 0.94 | 0.98 | 0.96 |
Table 3 shows the value of the load factors and t-values for each item. According to the results of the SmartPLS3 software output, since the values of the load factor magnitude of the observed variables and corresponding variable were appropriate, the perceived framework of environmental dynamism could be deduced, and a significant correlation and validity were observed between the items and sub-components.
| Structure | Items | Load Factor | t-Value | Significance Level | Result |
|---|
| Market dynamics | Pub1 | 0.98 | 158.531 | 0.001 | Confirm Indicator |
| Pub2 | 0.98 | 147.516 | 0.001 | Confirm Indicator |
| Market complexity | Pib1 | 0.90 | 36.716 | 0.001 | Confirm Indicator |
| Pib2 | 0.95 | 77.169 | 0.001 | Confirm Indicator |
| Pib3 | 0.95 | 89.362 | 0.001 | Confirm Indicator |
| Market predictability | Gpb1 | 0.97 | 130.298 | 0.001 | Confirm Indicator |
| Gpb2 | 0.97 | 113.281 | 0.001 | Confirm Indicator |
| Gpb3 | 0.98 | 247.381 | 0.001 | Confirm Indicator |
| Technological dynamics | Put1 | 0.98 | 121.044 | 0.001 | Confirm Indicator |
| Put2 | 0.98 | 143.041 | 0.001 | Confirm Indicator |
| Technological complexity | Pit1 | 0.97 | 87.809 | 0.001 | Confirm Indicator |
| Pit2 | 0.98 | 159.967 | 0.001 | Confirm Indicator |
| Pit3 | 0.97 | 115.163 | 0.001 | Confirm Indicator |
| Pit4 | 0.91 | 31.744 | 0.001 | Confirm Indicator |
| Technological predictability | Gpt1 | 0.96 | 134.063 | 0.001 | Confirm Indicator |
| Gpt2 | 0.98 | 235.086 | 0.001 | Confirm Indicator |
| Gpt3 | 0.96 | 78.814 | 0.001 | Confirm Indicator |
Table 4 shows the results of the confirmatory factor analysis regarding the sub-components of the business environmental dynamism model.
| Variable | Indicator | Load Factor | t-Value | R2 |
|---|
| Market turbulence | Market dynamics | 0.85 | 25.85 | 0.72 |
| Market complexity | 0.79 | 18.82 | 0.63 |
| Market predictability | 0.74 | 11.06 | 0.55 |
| Technological turbulence | Technological dynamics | 0.94 | 63.05 | 0.88 |
| Technological complexity | 0.92 | 69.00 | 0.84 |
| Technological predictability | 0.69 | 6.10 | 0.48 |
Table 5 shows the results of the confirmatory factor analysis regarding the components of the business environmental dynamism model.
| Variable | Indicator | Load Factor | t-Value | R2 |
|---|
| Environmental dynamism | Market turbulence | 0.85 | 39.12 | 0.73 |
| Technological turbulence | 0.92 | 65.47 | 0.85 |
To evaluate the fit of the structural model, several criteria were used, the most fundamental of which was the t-value. The correlation between the structures was estimated at 95% confidence level, which indicated the t-values to be higher than 1.96.
Figure 2 depicts the confirmatory factor analysis of the model, and the values have also been presented to assess the structural part of the model. Considering that the values on the paths were higher than 1.96, the paths were considered significant, which confirmed the appropriateness of the research structural model.
In the present study, the GOF was used to evaluate the fit of the model in the partial least squares, and the value was estimated at 0.76, indicating an upper general fit for the structural model.