Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Shumei Wang
 -- 2169 2022-12-10 07:28:21 |
2 format correct
Catherine Yang
Meta information modification 2169 2022-12-12 03:48:11 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Wang, S.;  Xu, Y. Knowledge Transfer of Social E-Commerce Platform. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/38484 (accessed on 11 May 2024).
Wang S,  Xu Y. Knowledge Transfer of Social E-Commerce Platform. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/38484. Accessed May 11, 2024.
Wang, Shumei, Yaoqun Xu. "Knowledge Transfer of Social E-Commerce Platform" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/38484 (accessed May 11, 2024).
Wang, S., & Xu, Y. (2022, December 10). Knowledge Transfer of Social E-Commerce Platform. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/38484
Wang, Shumei and Yaoqun Xu. "Knowledge Transfer of Social E-Commerce Platform." Encyclopedia. Web. 10 December, 2022.
Knowledge Transfer of Social E-Commerce Platform
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su142215383

Social e-commerce is an emerging e-commerce mode in response to the upgrading of consumption, which has become an important engine for the development of the digital economy. Knowledge transfer and sharing play vital roles in improving the competitiveness and the sustainability of social e-commerce platform enterprises.

knowledge transfer complex network evolutionary game strategy imitation preference social e-commerce

1. Social E-Commerce

Traditional e-commerce adopts a centralized operation mode, where e-commerce platforms uniformly recommend content to consumers. In the centralized operation mode, registered businesses need to pay a high registration fee to the e-commerce platform, and high consumer costs have become the biggest bottleneck for the development of traditional e-commerce [1]. With the development of social networks and social media, social networks and social media have gradually become the expansion pathways for e-commerce [2][3]. Social elements, such as attention, sharing, communication, discussion and interaction, presented in e-commerce can effectively improve consumers’ shopping experiences and intentions, and promote consumption upgrading. Online shopping and social networks are deemed to be the main sources of social e-commerce [4]. In addition, Web 2.0 is believed to be the technical basis for making social e-commerce a reality [5][6]. Different from traditional centralized e-commerce, social e-commerce runs with the operation mode of e-commerce combined with social networks. Consequently, social e-commerce has characteristics of decentralization, where the content distribution is realized by consumers through social networks. Through dominant interaction with the ways of social media, distribution, and live broadcasting, social e-commerce allows stakeholders to participate in the process of commodity trading, and can effectively realize matching among brand owners, suppliers, distributors and consumers, thereby achieving the purpose of value co-creation [7]. Social e-commerce provides a potential scheme for reducing consumers’ cost, and, hence, is an important development direction for the e-commerce industry of the future.
Social e-commerce attaches importance to social operations. It can make full use of content output to attract new customers, improve customers’ engagement, and reduce the cost in customer acquisition, thereby increasing sales, realizing brand communication, and enabling customers to gain benefits. Social e-commerce can share and recommend products on social e-commerce platforms, by means of groups, distribution, communities and applets, so as to achieve rapid growth in customer flow and help merchants gather enough customers [8]. In addition, social e-commerce can also share and recommend products through live streaming, so as to speed up the buying decision and improve buying efficiency [9]. Further, social e-commerce platforms have evolved into different types through social operations in order to increase customer traffic, engagement and retention. For example, Diao et al. [10] argued that social e-commerce platforms can be divided into four categories, that is, e-commerce-oriented social e-commerce, interest-oriented social e-commerce, social networking-oriented social e-commerce and group buying-oriented social e-commerce. There are also membership-based social commerce platforms (Aikucun and Yunji), content-based social commerce platforms (Xiaohongshu and TikTok), group buying-based social commerce platforms (Pinduoduo and Jingxi), and community-based social commerce platforms (Suxiaotuan and Linlinyi) in China.

2. Value Co-Creation and Value Network

Additive and Zott [11] proposed that novelty, lock-in, complementarity and efficiency are the main driving factors of value creation. The driving factors of value creation have important impacts on the business mode of enterprises [12]. Geissdoerfer et al. [13] argued that a good business mode needs to incorporate many stakeholders into the sustainable value creation process to effectively enhance competitiveness. Value co-creation is the concept proposed by Vargo and Lusch [14] on the basis of the traditional value creation theory. In theories of value co-creation, value co-creation, based on service dominant logic [15], holds that consumers and service providers create value together. Guo et al. [9] studied the influence of live streaming characteristics of social e-commerce on value co-creation and consumers’ purchase intentions, and believed that interactivity, authenticity and entertainment of live streaming had significant impacts on value co-creation.
With evolution of decentralized social e-commerce, the participants of value co-creation in the social e-commerce are more and more diversified, including social e-commerce platforms, brand owners, distributors, consumers and so on. Different participants have distinct characteristics and interest orientations, and their interactions can present diversified value creation activities and form a complex value network [16]. The value network can connect the individual needs of consumers and the internal system of enterprises. Participants create value through cooperation and competition, and can effectively improve competitive advantage. Ricciotti [17] pointed out that the value network is an extension of the linear value chain theory. In the era of Internet, cross-border integration and social consumption, the value network is more suitable for enterprises’ value creation and conducive to the collaborative development of multiple participants. The value network can be characterized by network size, relationship strength and member heterogeneity [18]. The network size refers to the number of participants in the value network. The relationship strength refers to the connection strength of the participants in the value network, and higher relationship strength is characterized by frequent interaction and information exchange. The membership heterogeneity refers to the differentiation level of participants in the value network. Based on the value network theory, Qiao et al. [8] proposed five modes of evolution for value co-creation in social e-commerce, namely, dual co-creation mode, hub branch mode, network branch mode, multilateral collaboration mode, and multilateral symbiosis mode. For example, in the multilateral symbiosis mode, social e-commerce platform enterprises can cultivate stable and mutually beneficial symbiosis for many participants, and form a value network with a large scale, strong relationship strength and high heterogeneity of members, so as to achieve the purpose of effectively deploying sustainable business ecology.

3. Knowledge Transfer

Knowledge transfer plays an important role in promoting both intra-organizational learning and inter-organizational learning [19][20]. Knowledge can be divided into explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge [21]. Explicit knowledge is knowledge that is easy to encode and share, while tacit knowledge is unstructured knowledge that is difficult to describe and transfer with language, and which is embodied in behavior, convention, experience, skills and perception. Nonaka’s SECI model [22] shows that improvements of knowledge and innovation ability are generated by the mutual transformation of tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge.
In the process of improving the competitiveness of the social e-commerce platform enterprise, the social e-commerce platform enterprise’s operation team needs to apply a lot of knowledge and skills in the operation, which involve killer content, gamification marketing strategy, personalized website content, brand culture infiltration, live telepresence, crowd sourcing and so on. Skilled application of the above knowledge and skills in the operation plays an important role in promoting the competitiveness of the social e-commerce platform enterprise. The key knowledge and skills, in more detail, are the following: (1) Killer content provides the most attractive features of goods or services and has a unique value in motivating consumers, and can enhance consumers’ brand loyalty and purchasing ability [23]. Killer content can effectively promote social interaction, and its spread on initial social e-commerce platforms can rapidly drive market growth [23]; (2) Gamification marketing strategy for social e-commerce is highly applicable to the mobile phone service environment, and can effectively enhance enjoyment, improve mobile phone user engagement and retention, and accelerate repurchase [24]; (3) High-quality information content [25], personalized website content for customers’ preferences [26], and both friendliness and ease of use of websites [27] all contribute to improving customers’ trust in products. Furthermore, timely response service to customers’ needs can win customers’ trust by resolving disputes and disambiguation [28]; (4) Penetrating brand culture into consumers and enabling consumers to obtain brand emotional experience value can effectively improve brand loyalty [29]; (5) Telepresence and social presence generated by live streaming enable consumers to immerse themselves in a virtual world similar to the offline consumption environment, thereby reducing the uncertainty of consumers and the psychological distance between them and merchants, and, thus, enhancing consumers’ trust [30][31][32][33][34]; (6) Crowd-sourcing leverages the potential of users in social networks to generate new ideas and advertisements, create added value at a small cost and even at no cost, and improve efficiency by understanding customer needs, identifying potential customers, and building loyalty [35]. Furthermore, the social e-commerce platform enterprise’s operation team can improve the competitiveness of the social e-commerce platform enterprise by collaboratively creating consumers’ demand and promoting shopping social attributes. For example, the social e-commerce platform enterprise’s operation team can create consumers’ demand through collaborative live streaming and distribution [36]. The Pinduoduo platform encourages participants of the platform by coordinating different marketing strategies (such as low-price marketing strategy + social marketing strategy or gamification marketing strategy + brand channel marketing strategy) [37]. Knowledge transfer plays a key role in promoting organizational learning, aggregating employees’ personal knowledge into organizational knowledge, and establishing and enhancing organizational competitive advantages [19]. Therefore, the social e-commerce platform enterprise’s operation team needs to effectively share and transfer knowledge and skills related to the operation within the organization, so as to improve the competitiveness of the social e-commerce platform enterprise in the industry, and lay the foundation for realizing cross-organizational value co-creation.
Cross-organizational value co-creation in the social e-commerce is realized through the interaction between the social e-commerce platform enterprise and multiple participants, such as commodity suppliers, brand owners, distributors and consumers. Knowledge is the basis of value co-creation [38], and value co-creation is an interactive process of establishing service experience through knowledge sharing and communication [39]. From this viewpoint, the process of cross-organizational value co-creation in social e-commerce reflects cross-organizational sharing and transfer of knowledge. Omotayo et al. [20] argued that knowledge sharing can be regarded as the interaction between people that require exchange of experience and skills, and it is an activity or process used to transfer knowledge among people, communities or organizations. Essentially, the purpose of knowledge sharing is to realize knowledge transfer. Knowledge transfer is indispensable in the process of value co-creation, and is a key condition for effective collaboration among participants of a value network [40]. The value network is the carrier to realize value co-creation, while social interaction is the effective way to realize the value co-creation. In the value network, knowledge transfer refers to the process of sharing knowledge between participants through continuous interaction [41]. Interaction between enterprises and customers can promote information exchange and the sharing and transfer of knowledge [42], while social e-commerce can promote the socialization of participants through interpersonal communication on social networks [43], which helps participants acquire skills, share knowledge and integrate opinions through social interaction [44].
Obviously, in order to improve competitiveness, the social e-commerce platform enterprise should pay attention not only to intra-organizational operation knowledge transfer, but also to cross-organizational knowledge sharing for value co-creation. In the social e-commerce platform enterprise, the operation serves to realize value co-creation. What is more, intra-organizational operational knowledge transfer of the social e-commerce platform enterprise is conducive to not only improving competitive advantage in the industry, but also to realize cross-organizational value co-creation, increasing the scale of the value network and relationship strength, and effectively laying out sustainable business ecology [8].

4. Complex Network-Based Evolutionary Game

Evolutionary game is an important theory for the study of knowledge transfer, and mainly reflects the knowledge transfer behavior of decision makers, through stability analysis of duplicated dynamic equations [45][46]. Since complex networks can better reflect topological statistical characteristics and complex relationships of real network systems [45][47][48][49][50][51], the study of the knowledge transfer behavior of the complex network-based evolutionary game, combining complex networks and evolutionary game, has attracted extensive attention from researchers. At present, complex network-based evolutionary games are applied to the research of intra-organizational or inter-organizational knowledge transfer behavior, such as knowledge transfer of R&D projects [50][51], knowledge transfer of industry–university–research cooperation innovation networks [49], and knowledge transfer omong manufacturing R&D teams [45]. Bounded rationality holds that incomplete decision-making information, inconsistent preferences and inconsistent cognitive ability of decision makers lead to decision makers being unable to make fully rational decisions when facing complex problems [52]. Bounded rationality changes the decision-making benchmark of the game, and finally changes the decision-making behavior of the players, so has been paid more attention in research. With in-depth research on bounded rationality, there have been related reports on the knowledge transfer behavior of the complex network-based evolutionary games, from the perspective of bounded rationality [50][51][53]. For example, Wang et al. [50] and Huang et al. [51] respectively studied the influence of bounded rationality of reciprocity and reputation on knowledge transfer behavior in the complex network-based evolutionary games, and found that bounded rationality of reciprocity and reputation could significantly affect knowledge transfer behavior. Strategy imitation is an important mechanism in strategy selection of the complex network-based evolutionary games. At present, a variety of strategy imitation rules are proposed, such as the natural selection rule, based on the Moran process [54][55], the deterministic imitation optimal rule [56], the stochastic imitation winner rule [57], and the paired comparison learning rule [58]. Obviously, strategy imitation preference can change the benchmark for decision makers to select game strategies, and can have an impact on the knowledge transfer behavior of the complex network-based evolutionary games. At the same time, there is also a widespread preference to imitate the strategies of well-performing individuals in the real world of enterprises and organizations. Strategy imitation preference has both theoretical support and a realistic basis, so it is necessary to study the influence of strategy imitation preference on knowledge transfer behavior by combining it with the complex network-based evolutionary game. However, there is no research on strategy imitation preference.

References

  1. Zhao, W.; Wang, A.; Chen, Y. How to maintain the sustainable development of a business platform: A case study of pinduoduo social commerce platform in China. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6337.
  2. Sohaib, O. Social networking services and social trust in social commerce: A PLS-SEM approach. J. Glob. Inf. Manag. 2021, 29, 23–44.
  3. Li, L.; Kang, K.; Sohaib, O. Investigating factors affecting Chinese tertiary students’ online-startup motivation based on the COM-B behaviour changing theory. J. Entrep. Emerg. Econ. 2021. ahead of print.
  4. Stephen, A.T.; Toubia, O. Deriving value from social commerce networks. J. Mark. Res. 2010, 47, 215–228.
  5. Huang, Z.; Benyoucef, M. From e-commerce to social commerce: A close look at design features. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2013, 12, 246–259.
  6. Wang, X.; Wang, H.; Zhang, C. A literature review of social commerce research from a systems thinking perspective. Systems 2022, 10, 56.
  7. Wang, C.; Zhang, P. The Evolution of Social Commerce: The people, management, technology, and information dimensions. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2012, 31, 105–127.
  8. Qiao, H.; Zhang, S.; Li, Z.; Wan, Z. The evolution motivation and process model of value co-creation of decentralized e-commerce: A longitudinal case study based on idol group. Manag. Rev. 2021, 33, 170–184.
  9. Guo, H.; Sun, X.; Pan, C.; Xu, S.; Yan, N. The Sustainability of Fresh Agricultural Produce Live Broadcast Development: Influence on Consumer Purchase Intentions Based on Live Broadcast Characteristics. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7159.
  10. Diao, Y.J.; He, Y.S.; Yuan, Y.F. Framework for understanding the business model of social commerce. Int. J. Manag. Sci. 2015, 2, 112–118.
  11. Amit, R.; Zott, C. Value creation in e-business. Strateg. Manag. J. 2001, 22, 493–520.
  12. Zhang, N.; Levä, T.; Hämmäinen, H. Value networks and two-sided markets of Internet content delivery. Telecommun. Policy 2013, 38, 460–472.
  13. Geissdoerfer, M.; Morioka, S.; de Carvalho, M.M.; Evans, S. Business models and supply chains for the circular economy. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 190, 712–721.
  14. Vargo, S.L.; Lusch, R.F. Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. J. Mark. 2004, 68, 1–17.
  15. Vargo, S.L.; Lusch, R.F. Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2007, 36, 1–10.
  16. Basole, R.C.; Rouse, W.B. Complexity of service value networks: Conceptualization and empirical investigation. IBM Syst. J. 2008, 47, 53–70.
  17. Ricciotti, F. From value chain to value network: A systematic literature review. Manag. Rev. Q. 2019, 70, 191–212.
  18. Peng, X.; Wu, X.; Wu, D. The evolution of enterprise networks based on the dynamic process of the second innovation and the evolution of the balance model of the organizational learninh—A case study on haitian in 1971–2010. Manag. World 2011, 4, 138–149.
  19. Nonaka, I. A Dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organ. Sci. 1994, 5, 14–37.
  20. Omotayo, F.; Babalola, S.O. Factors influencing knowledge sharing among information and communication technology artisans in Nigeria. J. Syst. Inf. Technol. 2016, 18, 148–169.
  21. Xu, N.; Xu, Y. Research on tacit knowledge dissemination of automobile consumers’ low-carbon purchase intention. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10097.
  22. Nonaka, I.; Toyama, R.; Konno, N. SECI, Ba and leadership: A unified model of dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Plan. 2000, 33, 5–34.
  23. Han, J.; Cho, O. Platform business eco-model evolution: Case study on kakaotalk in Korea. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2015, 1, 6.
  24. Hofacker, C.F.; de Ruyter, K.; Lurie, N.H.; Manchanda, P.; Donaldson, J. Gamification and mobile marketing effectiveness. J. Interact. Mark. 2016, 34, 25–36.
  25. Mithas, S.; Ramasubbu, N.; Krishnan, M.S.; Fornell, C. Designing web sites for customer loyalty across business domains: A multilevel analysis. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2006, 23, 97–127.
  26. McKnight, D.H.; Lankton, N.K.; Nicolaou, A.; Price, J. Distinguishing the effects of B2B information quality, system quality, and service outcome quality on trust and distrust. J. Strat. Inf. Syst. 2017, 26, 118–141.
  27. Jacob, D.W.; Fudzee, M.F.; Salamat, M.A.; Kasim, S.; Mahdin, H.; Ramli, A.A. Modelling end-user of electronic-government service: The role of information quality, system quality and trust. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017, 226, 012096.
  28. Mukherjee, A.; Nath, P. A model of trust in online relationship banking. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2003, 21, 5–15.
  29. Nicholas, I.; Oriol, I.; Majken, S. Building brands together: Emergence and outcomes of co-creation. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2013, 55, 5–26.
  30. Lu, B.; Fan, W.; Zhou, M. Social presence, trust, and social commerce purchase intention: An empirical research. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 56, 225–237.
  31. Kim, N.; Kim, W. Do your social media lead you to make social deal purchases? Consumer-generated social referrals for sales via social commerce. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2018, 39, 38–48.
  32. Suh, K.-S.; Chang, S. User interfaces and consumer perceptions of online stores: The role of telepresence. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2006, 25, 99–113.
  33. Jiang, C.; Rashid, R.M.; Wang, J. Investigating the role of social presence dimensions and information support on consumers’ trust and shopping intentions. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2019, 51, 263–270.
  34. Dong, X.; Zhao, H.; Li, T. The role of live-streaming e-commerce on consumers’ purchasing intention regarding green agricultural products. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4374.
  35. Suen, T.Y.; Cheung, S.K.; Wang, F.L.; Hui, J.Y. Effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors on employee participation in internal crowdsourcing initiatives in China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8878.
  36. Available online: https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1689304697706365665&wfr=spider&for=pc (accessed on 19 January 2021).
  37. Nyaga, G.N.; Whipple, J.M.; Lynch, D.F. Examining supply chain relationships: Do buyer and supplier perspectives on collaborative relationships differ? J. Oper. Manag. 2010, 28, 101–114.
  38. Bagheri, S.; Kusters, R.J.; Trienekens, J.J.; van der Zandt, H.V. Classification framework of knowledge transfer issues across value networks. Procedia CIRP 2016, 47, 382–387.
  39. Yen, C.-H.; Teng, H.-Y.; Tzeng, J.-C. Innovativeness and customer value co-creation behaviors: Mediating role of customer engagement. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 88, 102514.
  40. Bagheri, S.; Kusters, R.J.; Trienekens, J.J.M. Business-IT alignment in PSS value networks—Linking customer knowledge management to social customer relationship management. SciTePress 2015, 3, 249–257.
  41. Kallmuenzer, A. Exploring drivers of innovation in hospitality family firms. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 30, 1978–1995.
  42. Okazaki, S. The tactical use of mobile marketing: How adolescents’ social networking can best Shape brand extensions. J. Advert. Res. 2009, 49, 12–26.
  43. Wang, X.; Yu, C.; Wei, Y. Social media peer communication and impacts on purchase intentions: A consumer socialization framework. J. Interact. Mark. 2012, 26, 198–208.
  44. Azeem, M.; Ahmed, M.; Haider, S.; Sajjad, M. Expanding competitive advantage through organizational culture, knowledge sharing and organizational innovation. Technol. Soc. 2021, 66, 101635.
  45. Xu, J.Z.; Zhu, X.Y.; Guan, J. Evolution of knowledge transfer network of R&D team in manufacturing enterprises based on evolutionary game theory. J. Syst. Eng. Electron. 2018, 33, 145–156.
  46. Wang, F.; Xu, Y. Evolutionary game analysis of the quality of agricultural products in supply chain. Agriculture 2022, 12, 1575.
  47. Xie, X.; Fang, L.; Zeng, S. Collaborative innovation network and knowledge transfer performance: A fsQCA approach. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 5210–5215.
  48. Wang, X. Forming mechanisms and structures of a knowledge transfer network: Theoretical and simulation research. J. Knowl. Manag. 2013, 17, 278–289.
  49. Cao, X.; Li, C. Evolutionary game simulation of knowledge transfer in industry-university-research cooperative innovation network under different network scales. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 4027.
  50. Wang, X.; Guo, P. Research on knowledge transfer behavior among multi-agents of inter-organizational R&D project network based on preference difference. Ind. Eng. Manag. 2021, 26, 72–79.
  51. Huang, X.; Guo, P.; Wang, X.; Wang, D. Modeling and analysis of interorganizational knowledge transfer considering reputation mechanisms. Sustainability 2021, 13, 14020.
  52. Simon, H.A. Theories of bounded rationality. Decis. Organ. 1972, 1, 161–176.
  53. Wang, C.; Liu, X. Research on knowledge transfer behaviour in cooperative innovation and simulation. Econ. Res.-Ekon. Istraživanja 2019, 32, 1219–1236.
  54. Ohtsuki, H.; Hauert, C.; Lieberman, E.; Nowak, M.A. A simple rule for the evolution of cooperation on graphs and social networks. Nature 2006, 441, 502–505.
  55. Lieberman, E.; Hauert, C.; Nowak, M.A. Evolutionary dynamics on graphs. Nature 2005, 433, 312–316.
  56. Masuda, N.; Aihara, K. Spatial prisoner’s dilemma optimally played in small-world networks. Phys. Lett. A 2003, 313, 55–61.
  57. Hauert, C.; Doebeli, M. Spatial structure often inhibits the evolution of cooperation in the snowdrift game. Nature 2004, 428, 643–646.
  58. Szabó, G.; Tóke, C. Evolutionary prisoner’s dilemma game on a square lattice. Phys. Rev. E 1998, 58, 69–73.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Others
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Shumei Wang
,
Yaoqun Xu
View Times: 475
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 12 Dec 2022
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Feedback