Influence Of Knowledge Quality And Team Climate On Team Performance

Abstract

Nowadays, the success of organizations depends on the capacities of the intangible values rather than tangible assets. Using of knowledge in all business processes is gaining importance in time. For this reason, the acquisition of knowledge, sharing among the members of the organization, development, and management should be seen as a strategic activity in business activity. The aim of this study investigate the role of knowledge quality and team climate on team performance. The data were obtained from a total of 78 employees, 1 senior, 1 middle manager, 10 team managers, 4 project managers, and 62 experts in a private company who operating in the banking sector. The analysis results revealed that there is a positive and significant relationship between knowledge quality and team performance, but there is no significant relationship between team climate and team performance. The findings of this research provide direction of the executives by demonstrating empirical evidence.

Keywords: Knowledge qualityteam climateperformanceteam performance

Introduction

Globalization and rapid change of the world spark off diversity difficulties in the business world. One of the most important difficulties is a competitive environment which constantly increasing. In an increasingly competitive environment, the use of knowledge in all business processes is becoming increasingly important. The success of today's businesses is more dependent on the capacities of abstract values than on material assets. In this sense, conscious investors continuously improve their performance by producing quality products and services. In another aspect, technology, services, products, processes, roles and relationships have also changed in line with customer expectations. In this context, acquiring, developing and sharing knowledge among members of the organization has become a strategic activity.

In recent decades, the widespread use of teamwork in organizations has increased substantially in consequence of excessive competition (Zhang, Luo, Liao, & Peng, 2015) and knowledge quality gains importance both academician and practitioners in order to manage organizations (Lee, Strong, Kahn, & Wang, 2002). The quality of the knowledge provides many advantages for business such as improve products or services, develop novel applications, raise sales, and decrease costs (Kyoon Yoo, Vonderembse, & Ragu-Nathan, 2011). The quality of knowledge can be divided into two parts in terms of organizations’ benefits: effect on organizational activity and effect on external decisions related to organization. Knowledge quality assists expand the investment efficiency (Elaoud & Jarboui, 2017). As the quality of knowledge increases, more investment opportunities arise for managers (Biddle & Hilary, 2006; Chen, Hope, Li & Wang, 2011). The effect of knowledge quality on investment efficiency and opportunities can be handled as an external decisions related to organization. Moreover, knowledge quality effects on trust and distrusting beliefs (McKnight, Lankton, Nicolaou & Price, 2017) and affects organization performance. It can be concluded that the effect of knowledge quality on trust, distrusting beliefs and organization performance are organizational activity decisions.

Teams are the basic active unit of organizations (Gil, Rico, Alcover, & Barrasa, 2005). Studies which concerning team in organizations suggest that teamwork is significant for achieving organization’s objective and increasing performance. Studying together in teams involves knowledge sharing and professional improvement in the field of work (Leicher & Mulder, 2016) and teams provide optimal circumstances for stimulating creativity and performance through social and psychological power (Panuwatwanich, Stewart, & Mohamed, 2008). Consequently, centering upon teams and constituting the required condition for them is one way of that performance could be improved in organizations.

In perspective Total Quality Management, some concepts such as organizational structure, culture, and climate have been considered important to be successful organizations. (Detert, Schroeder, & Mauriel, 2000; Douglas & Judge, 2001). Otherwise, teamwork has become a fundamental ingredient to facilitating organizational success (Ragazzoni, Baiardi, Zotti, Anderson, & West, 2002). Although team climate and knowledge quality has a great importance for organization, there are few studies on this subject in Turkey. In this reasons, the aim of this study is to investigate the relationship between team climates, knowledge quality and team performance in organization.

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

Team Climate and Team Performance

In organizational science history, organizational climate studies have taken an important place and a variety of definitions has been proposed to explain the term of organizational climate (Glick, 1985). In order to understand organizational climate, firstly these two concepts must be explained: team and team climate. Teams are consisted in consequence of social interaction processes (Acuña, Gómez, & Juristo. 2008) and to feel a member of team is important for organization. Teams affects organizational performance (Baer & Frese, 2003) in that organizations are made up of teams. Existing literature emphasizes the ascending pertinent of teams inside contemporary organizations Basaglia, Caporarello, Magni, & Pennarola, 2010). The utilizing of teams raises the level of attendance in organisations, which is known to increase the efforts, loyalty, encourage for creativity, and attachment for employees, but influential team working agilities need a team atmosphere or “climate” which enables productive performance (Ragazzoni et al., 2002). For this reason, team climate is an important ingredient of organizations.

Team climate can be defined as the shared sense, feelings or beliefs of the team’s work approach and practices (Acuña, Gómez, & Juristo. 2008). Team climate; increase the obedience of employees, which they work in team. In this way, team climate relates the group with whom they interact to conduct work-related duties (Kinnunen, Feldt, & Mauno, 2016). Team climate provides many advantages for the organization such as creating trust among team members each other, sharing the same mission at work and achieving harmony coordination (Lee & Idris, 2017).

Organizational climate has described as the character of an organisation that separates one organization from others (Srivastav, 2010). Organizational climate is acknowledged as a significant structure in organizational behaviour and strategic human resource management. Moreover, it is one of the most important antecedents of person’s attitudes and behaviours in business (Ahmad, Jasimuddin, & Kee 2018; Srivastav, 2010). Behaviours and priorities of the team members shape their performance (Bamel, Rangnekar, Stokes, & Rastogi, 2013). Before creating an organizational climate, it is necessary to create a team climate. Because teams are the basic ingredients of organizations (Gil, Rico, Alcover, & Barrasa, 2005).

For a long time, team climate has been regarded as one of the most powerful component of social influence, which affects personal treatment in the team atmosphere (Hulsheger, Anderson, & Salgado, 2009). However, there is scarce research demonstration to find out team climate aspects that constitute team engagement (Sharma & Bhatnagar, 2017). According to Liang, Xue, Ke, & Wei, (2010), team climate significantly affects individuals’ perceptions, beliefs, and usage of technology. Xue, Bradley, and Liang (2011) empirically investigated the relationship between team climate and information sharing behaviour at organization. They found out that there is a significant relationship them.

In this study team climate refers the shared perceptions of working practices. By taking the lead from extant literature, it can be proposed that team climate has important linkage with team performances. Thus, the study hypothesizes that:

H1: Team climate positively relates to team performance.

Knowledge Quality and Team Performance

From far in the past, since the classical Greek era, philosophers have tried to define knowledge. These endeavors have led to the dawn of epistemological debates (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). However, since then there has been no consensus of knowledge definition. Knowledge is defined as a production, which is constituted from raw material –information (Shin, Holden, & Schmidt, 2001). According to Zack (1999), knowledge as meaningfully orchestrated conglomeration of information. Shin et al. (2001) state that knowledge is an information, and information is a raw material. Knowledge is an important element for organizations. Organizations continue their activities in the direction of the knowledge they obtain and make their decisions about the external environment. Therefore, it can be said that knowledge is of great importance for the organization and determines its future decisions. Moreover, knowledge-based perspective of the organization has emerged in the global strategic management (Alavi & Leidner, 2001).

Quality is a basic business competence, which augments a firm’s efficiency. However, there is no consensus in the literature on the definition of quality. From a one point of view, quality is defined to assessment according to established standards. From another point of view, quality is defined by convenience to customer expectations (Nelson, Todd, & Wixom, 2005). According to the research, for the long-term success of the business and to sustainability; quality of products and services is the core important determinant (Anderson & Zeithaml, 1984). Over the past decades, attention have focused on product and service quality. In recent times, attention has shifted from quality of service and product to quality of information (Kyoon Yoo et al., 2011).

Recently, quality of knowledge has gained an important status in order to ensure competitive advantage and to adapt for changing environmental conditions with organization (Lee et al., 2002). Despite the importance of knowledge, substantially the quality of knowledge used effectively depends on its quality (Rao & Osei-Bryson, 2007) and knowledge quality affects innovation, which helps organization to produce new service or product increase sales and augment profits. It improves problem-solving capability and efficiency. Moreover, it helps organizations to improve performance (Kyoon Yoo et al., 2011).

Studies, which investigate the relationship between knowledge management and organizational performance is start-up phase (Yu et al., 2007). Lee and Choi (2003) investigated the relationships between knowledge enablers and organizational performance by elaborating on the significance of knowledge processes. Their study proposed empirical results to make a contact knowledge management enablers and processes with organizational performance.

For the strategic management of knowledge resources, organizations should evaluate the role of quality of knowledge on organization performance (Gold, Malhotra, & Segars, 2001). According to Yu, Kim & Kim, (2007), knowledge quality effects on user knowledge satisfaction. It is known from previous research that satisfaction affects performance (Hatane, 2015; Gul, Usman, Liu, Rehman, & Jebran, 2018; Farooqui and Nagendra, 2014). It can be said that knowledge quality affects team performance. Therefore, we hypotheses that:

H2: Knowledge quality positively relates to team performance.

Figure 1: Research Model
Research Model
See Full Size >

Research Method

Sample and Data Collection

We collected data through survey to test the proposed hypotheses. In total, 78 employees who are studying in a private company operating in the banking sector completed the questionnaire. The distribution of respondents according to their position within the company is as follows: 1 senior, 1 middle manager, 10 team managers, 4 project managers and 62 experts. Table 1 shows demographic characteristics of the sample.

In the sample, 67.9% were female, whereas 32.1% male. The majority of them (51.3%) were single. It is seen that most of the participants had a bachelor degree when the education status of the participants is examined (79.5%), and followed master (11.5%), then upper secondary education (11.5%).

Table 1 -
See Full Size >

Measures

Knowledge quality

Knowledge quality was measured by the extent to which internal knowledge quality, contextual knowledge quality and operable knowledge quality. Items for knowledge quality were adopted from Yoo, Vonderembse & Ragu-Nathan, (2011).

Team Climate

We measured team climate with four dimensions: support from the organization, goal achievement, innovation and enabling formalization. The items were selected from González-Romá, Peiró & Tordera, (2002); Patterson, Warr & West, (2004); Poulton & West, (1999); West. Smith, Feng, & Lawthom, (1998).

Team Performance

Team members' perceived team performance was measured by a 2-item scale. One item was selected and adapted from John and colleagues’ study (Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1999): 'How well do you think your work team performs?' Respondents answered using a 5-point scale (1 = very badly. 5 =very well).

Analysis

The results of the factor analysis are shown in table 2 . 82% of the total variance is explained. Each variable was found to be positively and highly correlated and the most appropriate factor structure was reached. The smallest factor load is .582 and the highest factor load is .866.

Table 2 -
See Full Size >

Correlation Analysis

When the correlation results between the variables are examined, there is a positive and statistically significant relationship between the quality of knowledge and team performance at p <0.01 level. Table 3 shows that there is a significant correlation between team performance and team climate (r = 0.596, p <0.01). In addition to this, there was a significant correlation between team performance and knowledge quality (r = 0,696, p <0.01), team climate and knowledge quality (r = 0,770, p <0.01).

Table 3 -
See Full Size >

Regression Analysis

Multiple regression analysis was used to test hypotheses. The regression analysis results are shown in Table 4 .

Table 4 -
See Full Size >

When Table 4 is examined, the model in which the knowledge quality and team climate effects on the team performance of employees are investigated is statistically significant (F = 36.529; p <0, 01). The explanation power of the model is calculated as R² = 0.493. Regression analysis showed that knowledge quality (β = 0.582, p <0.01) has a statistically significant and positive effect on team performance. However, the team climate was not statistically significant (β = 0.148, p> 0.01) on team performance. The hypothesis H2 developed in the form of "Knowledge quality positively affects team performance" was accepted. On the other hand, the hypothesis H1 developed as "Team climate affects team performance positively" is not supported

Conclusion and Discussions

Knowledge quality is perceived today as one of the essential requirements of organizations and plays a role in improving the institutional performance of enterprises. The success of organizations depends on the quality of information. Employees are increasing their team performance with this information.

The main purpose of the study is to examine the quality of knowledge and the impact of team climate on team performance. The hypothesis H2 developed in the form of "Knowledge quality positively affects team performance" was accepted. According to the researches, knowledge management is very important in total quality management (Kahreh, Shirmohammadi, & Kahreh, 2014) and the relationship between product quality knowledge and performance is known from previous research (Claycomb, Dröge, & Germain, 2002). In parallel with previous research, this research investigate the relationship between knowledge quality and team performance. As a result of the analysis, we found that knowledge quality positively affects team performance. Thus, employees' perception of knowledge quality motivates and improves team performances. On the other hand, the hypothesis H1 developed as "Team climate affects team performance positively" is not supported. Although team climate has been regarded as one of the most powerful component of social influence (Hulsheger, Anderson, & Salgado, 2009), it is surprising that the relationship between the two variables is not supported. This result is probably due to the sample of the research. However, it can be said that only strong climates have an impact on team performance according to our results.

The extent of team performance depends on the level of knowledge quality. Information shared at the individual level and in groups will create "snowball effect". As information is shared, it will multiply and create surplus value, which will contribute to the success and continuity of the organization.

The selection of the study sample from the banking sector is a limitation of our work. Therefore, a similar study can be done for any other sector in the future, such as manufacturing industry, automotive sector or service industry. In future studies, the effects of other Principles of Total Quality Management on different factors such as firm performance or organizational justice can be examined.

References

  1. Acuña, S. T., Gómez, M., & Juristo, N. (2008). Towards understanding the relationship between team climate and software quality—a quasi-experimental study. Empirical software engineering, 13, 401-434. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10664-008-9074-8
  2. Ahmad, K. Z. B., Jasimuddin, S. M., & Kee, W. L. (2018). Organizational climate and job satisfaction: do employees’ personalities matter? Management Decision, 56, 421-440. https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MD-10-2016-0713
  3. Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS quarterly, 107-136. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3250961
  4. Anderson, C. R., & Zeithaml, C. P. (1984). Stage of the product life cycle, business strategy, and business performance. Academy of Management journal, 27(1), 5-24. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/255954
  5. Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations and firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 45-68. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.179
  6. Bamel, U. K., Rangnekar, S., Stokes, P., & Rastogi, R. (2013). Organizational climate and managerial effectiveness: an Indian perspective. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 21(2), 198-218. https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-09-2011-0514
  7. Basaglia, S., Caporarello, L., Magni, M., & Pennarola, F. (2010). IT knowledge integration capability and team performance: The role of team climate. International Journal of Information Management, 30(6), 542-551. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.04.003
  8. Biddle, G., & Hilary G. (2006), Accounting quality and firm-level capital investment. The Accounting Review, 81, 963-982. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/4093094
  9. Chen, F., Hope, O., Li, Q., Wang X. (2011). Financial reporting quality and investment efficiency of private firms in emerging markets. Accounting Review, 86, 1255-1288. https://dx.doi.org/10.2308/accr-10040
  10. Claycomb, C., Dröge, C., & Germain, R. (2002). Applied product quality knowledge and performance: Moderating effects of uncertainty. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 19(6), 649-671. https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656710210429555
  11. Detert, J. R., Schroeder, R. G., & Mauriel, J. J. (2000). A framework for linking culture and improvement initiatives in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 25, 850–863. https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/259210
  12. Douglas, T. J., & Judge, W. Q. (2001). Total quality management implementation and competitive advantage: the role of structural control and exploration. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 158–169. https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3069343
  13. Elaoud, A., & Jarboui, A. (2017). Auditor specialization, accounting information quality and investment efficiency. Research in International Business and Finance, 42, 616-629. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2017.07.006
  14. Farooqui, M. S., & Nagendra, A. (2014). The impact of person organization fit on job satisfaction and performance of the employees. Procedia economics and Finance, 11, 122-129. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00182-8
  15. Gil, F., Rico, R., Alcover, C. M., & Barrasa, A. (2005). Change-oriented leadership, satisfaction and performance in work groups: Effects of team climate and group potency. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20, 312-328. https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940510589073
  16. Glick, W. H. (1985). Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological climate: Pitfalls in multilevel research. Academy of management review, 10(3), 601-616. https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/258140
  17. Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. (2001). Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of management information systems, 18(1), 185-214. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2001.11045669
  18. González-Romá, V, Peiró. J. M., & Tordera. N. (2002). An examination of the antecedents and moderator influences of climate strength. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 465-473. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.465
  19. Gul, H., Usman, M., Liu, Y., Rehman, Z., & Jebran, K. (2018). Does the effect of power distance moderate the relation between person environment fit and job satisfaction leading to job performance? Evidence from Afghanistan and Pakistan. Future Business Journal, 4(1), 68-83. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fbj.2017.12.001
  20. Hatane, S. E. (2015). Employee satisfaction and performance as intervening variables of learning organization on financial performance. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 211, 619-628. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.081
  21. Hulsheger, U.R., Anderson, N. & Salgado, J.F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: a comprehensive meta-analysis spaning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1128-45. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015978
  22. Jehn. K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale. M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A filed study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 741-763. https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2667054
  23. Kahreh, Z. S., Shirmohammadi, A., & Kahreh, M. S. (2014). Explanatory study towards analysis the relationship between Total Quality Management and Knowledge Management. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 109, 600-604. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.513
  24. Kinnunen, U., Feldt, T., & Mauno, S. (2016). Authentic leadership and team climate: testing cross-lagged relationships. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(2), 331-345. https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMP-12-2014-0362
  25. Kyoon Yoo, D., Vonderembse, M. A., & Ragu-Nathan, T. S. (2011). Knowledge quality: antecedents and consequence in project teams. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(2), 329-343. https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673271111119727
  26. Lee, H.S., & Choi, B.G. (2003). Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organizational performance: an integrative view and empirical examination. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20(1), 179-228. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2003.11045756
  27. Lee, M. C. C., & Idris, M. A. (2017). Psychosocial safety climate versus team climate: The distinctiveness between the two organizational climate constructs. Personnel Review, 46, 988-1003. https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/PR-01-2016-0003
  28. Lee, Y. W., Strong, D. M., Kahn, B. K., & Wang, R. Y. (2002). AIMQ: a methodology for information quality assessment. Information & management, 40, 133-146. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(02)00043-5
  29. Leicher, V., & Mulder, R. H. (2016). Team learning, team performance and safe team climate in elder care nursing. Team Performance Management, 22, 399-414. https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/TPM-04-2016-0017
  30. Liang, H., Xue, Y., Ke, W., & Wei, K.K. (2010). Understanding the influence of team climate on IT use. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 11(8), 414-32. Retrieved from https://aisel.aisnet.org/jais/vol11/iss8/2
  31. McKnight, D. H., Lankton, N. K., Nicolaou, A., & Price, J. (2017). Distinguishing the effects of B2B information quality, system quality, and service outcome quality on trust and distrust. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 26, 118-141. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2017.01.001
  32. Nelson, R. R., Todd, P. A., & Wixom, B. H. (2005). Antecedents of information and system quality: an empirical examination within the context of data warehousing. Journal of management information systems, 21, 199-235. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/40398737
  33. Panuwatwanich, K., Stewart, R. A., & Mohamed, S. (2008). The role of climate for innovation in enhancing business performance: the case of design firms. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 15, 407-422. https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09699980810902712
  34. Patterson, M., Warr, P, & West, M. (2004). Organizational climate and company productivity: the role of employee affect and employee level. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 193-216. https://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317904774202144
  35. Poulton, B. C. & West, M. A. (1999). The determinants of effectiveness in primary health care teams, Journal of Interprofessional Care, 13, 7-18. https://dx.doi.org/10.3109/13561829909025531
  36. Ragazzoni, P., Baiardi, P., Zotti, A. M., Anderson, N., & West, M. (2002). Research note: Italian validation of the team climate inventory: a measure of team climate for innovation. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17, 325-336. https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940210428128
  37. Rao, L. and Osei-Bryson, K. (2007). Towards defining dimensions of knowledge systems quality, Expert Systems with Applications, 33(2), 368-78. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2006.05.003
  38. Sharma, A., & Bhatnagar, J. (2017). Emergence of team engagement under time pressure: role of team leader and team climate. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 23(3), 171-185. https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/TPM-06-2016-0031
  39. Shin, M., Holden, T., & Schmidt, R. A. (2001). From knowledge theory to management practice: towards an integrated approach. Information processing & management, 37(2), 335-355. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4573(00)00031-5
  40. Srivastav, A. K. (2010). Organizational Climate: BPO Industry. SCMS Journal of Indian Management, 7(2), 1-10.
  41. West.,M. A., Smith, H.. Feng, W, L., & Lawthom, R. (1998). Research excellence and departmental climate in British Universities. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 71, 261-281. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1998.tb00676.x
  42. Xue, Y., Bradley, J. and Liang, H. (2011). Team climate, empowering leadership, and knowledge sharing, Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(2), 299-312. https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673271111119709
  43. Yoo, D.K., Vonderembse, M.A., & Ragu-Nathan, T.S., (2011). Knowledge quality: antecedents and consequence in project teams, Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(2), 329-343. https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673271111119727
  44. Yu, S. H., Kim, Y. G., & Kim, M. Y. (2007). Do we know what really drives KM performance? Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(6), 39-53. https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673270710832154
  45. Zack, M. H. (1999). Managing codified knowledge. Sloan management review, 40(4), 45.
  46. Zhang, H., Luo, X. R., Liao, Q., & Peng, L. (2015). Does IT team climate matter? An empirical study of the impact of co-workers and the Confucian work ethic on deviance behavior. Information & Management, 52(6), 658-667. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2015.05.006

Copyright information

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

About this article

Cite this paper as:

Click here to view the available options for cite this article.

Publisher

Future Academy

First Online

18.12.2019

Doi

10.15405/epsbs.2019.01.02.4

Online ISSN

2357-1330