CAMPAÑA NACIONAL “PRIMERO ECUADOR” ¿LOGRÓ SUS OBJETIVOS?

The Competitiveness of Marketing in the SME of the Commercial and Services Sector In Latin America: Comparative Mexico-Brazil-Colombia [1]

Emigdio Larios-Gómez[2]

 

Recibido en diciembre 2018, aceptado en marzo 2019

RESUMEN

Esta é uma investigação empírica baseada em uma pesquisa, composta por três amostras. A primeira consiste em Micro e Pequenas Empresas (MIPES) na cidade de Celaya, no estado de Guanajuato, no México, o segundo por empresas MIPES Cidade Piracicaba no Estado de São Paulo no Brasil eo terceiro por empresas MIPES Cidade Bogotá, na Colômbia. Cada amostra foi por conveniência, de 14 empresas (4 ônibus do setor comercial e 10 pequenas do setor de serviços), para cada país. Uma pesquisa foi aplicada através de um instrumento baseado no Modelo de Gestão do Conhecimento de Probst, Raub e Romhardt (2001), sob a perspectiva da Gestão de Marketing. O projeto de pesquisa é uma transversal abordagem conclusiva-quantitativo e não experimental (Malhotra, 2009), a fim de identificar diferenças no valor do conhecimento de marketing criada pela MIPES do México, Colômbia e Brasil, para através da transferência tácita e explícita do conhecimento e da conversão do conhecimento para a competitividade do mercado.

Palabras clave: mipyme, micro pequenas e médias empresas, competitividade em marketing, gestão do conhecimento, gestão de marketing

 

ABSTRACT

This is an empirical research studio, conclusive-quantitative approach of a transversal and non-experimental, based on a survey with three samples integrated by Micro and Small Enterprises (MSE) of Celaya (Guanajuato) in Mexico, of Piracicaba (São Paulo) in Brazil and of Bogota in Colombia. Each sample was for convenience of 14 companies for each country. The objective was identify the differences in the value of the Technology marketing knowledge to through the tacit and explicit transfer of knowledge and the conversion of knowledge for market competitiveness. It was found that the MSE of three countries, almost always share the same characteristics, the most outstanding from the empirical management and without sector expertise to be competitive from a marketing perspective, since the lack of of strategic plans or programs in this discipline, makes them disappear or have problems in their marketing and positioning processes.

Key Word: SME, micro and small business, Technology marketing, marketing competitiveness, knowledge management, marketing management.

 

1. INTRODUCTION

 

The service as a product in the economy of any country, is a set of intangible and heterogeneous activities, the result of a productive activity that modifies, supports or contributes to the production conditions of the consumption units (they are the services that generate a process of transformation, because the individual can not do it, does not want to do it or is not empowered to do it), or they help the exchange of products in an economy where a tangible is already accompanied by an intangible. That is to say, of goods that are complementary for services, ideas or experiences, generating value to the consumer. In general terms, a service is an activity that a third person does for us whether they are people or companies, because we can not do it from the preparation, physical conditioning or technical requirements approach, or we do not know or we are not empowered to do this activity (Larios-Gómez, 2014). The services have a great impact and influence on the growth, development and efficiency of the industries and therefore on the general economic results of the country, as well as, in recent years, we find environmental services, which contribute to sustainable development, that help reduce the negative effects of economic and productive activities in society. Given an increase in the presence of services in business and consumer processes, becoming an innovative, productive and tradable activity (Aboal, Arias-Ortiz, Crespi, Garda, Rasteletti, Rubalcaba, Vairo and Vargas, 2015).

 

Currently, services have become the economic sector of more development or growth of the world economy: tertiarization - an economy based on the services sector - is a global, economic and social transformation that takes place in the economies of the most developed countries. and not developed, since the last phase of the industrial revolution (Serrano, 2011). It consists of an increase in the activities of the tertiary sector (services sector), which has become the predominant sector in the economy impacting the activities of the other sectors, this growth of services, not as a separate sector, but rather together with the growth of integrated service activities within the different economic activities of the industrial and agricultural sectors (Rubalcaba, 2007).

 

The growth and specialization of the tertiary sector has impacted practically all areas of human activity and among its various types of activities, there are some physical transformations in the state of material goods produced by the primary and secondary sectors. Other services have to do directly with people, intervening physically (transport, surgery, hairdressing) or socially and psychologically (entertainment, education, counseling). Likewise, there are services that have an informative nature (telecommunications, consultancy, software, news services). That is why, for economic, commercial and political specialists, the service economy is about understanding the point of view of the user or consumer (Fernández and Torres, 2006).

 

COMPETITIVENESS IN MIPYME IN LATIN AMERICA.

One of the characteristics of Latin American SMEs is their dependence on only producing specific products (goods, services, ideas or experiences) that do not compete with mass-produced products of large industrial companies, in order to survive in the process of industrial development and economic (OECD, 2012). SMEs must produce products designed according to the requirements of the customers of a specific market, segment or niche market, in small series where the consumer is closely related to customer service (installation, specific adaptation to their needs, maintenance and others). Also, SMEs can produce services, ideas or experiences for large companies and be the complement of the offer of their products. The specialization of the company for more than 15 years, demands high rates of technical and business qualification, demanding the ability to innovate continuously. But most of the SMEs in Latin America do not have these characteristics or technical and business qualifications. And they are working in standardized production areas with low intensity of technical knowledge or innovation, where they compete directly and with few advantages, with large-scale production and / or with large commercial houses and in industries such as generic foods, footwear or clothing, Latin American SMEs do not find competitive advantages (Altenburg, T. and U. Eckhardt 2006).

 

The SMEs in developed countries are the support and suppliers of large companies and only a few offer customized products to not compete with large companies (Figure 1). Conversely, SMEs in developing countries, most compete in mass product markets that are the domain of large companies and the result of this, is a vicious circle in which the initial low productivity and the absence of knowledge transfer between companies reinforce each other (Altenburg, 2011).

 

Figure 1 Industrial Organization of SMEs.

Source: Altenburg and Eckhardt (2006) mencioned by Larios-Gómez (2016).

 

SMEs are the creators of jobs and represent more than 90% of the economy, both in highly developed countries and in developing countries, being the engine of growth and development (Howald, 2001) and in some countries their impact is also gives in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The developed countries generally account for 70% of world GDP and it is thanks to their large companies, while in the countries belonging to the OECD, 60% of production is generated by SMEs with a large contribution to employment and low contribution to the production as a reflection of a heterogeneous production structure, the production of products with low added value and a low participation in exports (OECD & ECLAC, 2013). So in this sense, both the Mexican, Colombian and Brazilian MIPE "must have the ability to shape their administrative, financial, operational and commercial structures, and adapt their administrative practices to the needs of the environment" (Larios-Gómez, 2016a, p.2).

 

Based on OECD studies, in Mexico there are around four million companies, and 99.8% are micro, small and medium enterprises. MSMEs contribute 52% of GDP and generate 72% of formal jobs in the country (only of these, 6,700 are large companies) (OECD & IDEA Foundation, 2010). Despite the numerical impact and the great difference compared to larger companies, Mexican MSMEs have to overcome several obstacles to their development and survival, such as access to finance, scarce command of markets to market their products, human resources with little training and specialization, limited use of technology and little or no experience to market their products in international markets.

 

To define the competitiveness of companies, based on what was mentioned by Pérez and Pérez (2008), the conceptualization of competitiveness has undergone changes in both its definition and its content in accordance with the global economic outlook. Focusing its objective in the national, sectorial and business spheres. For this same author, competitiveness is the ability of a public or private organization to maintain advantages that allow it to reach and improve its socioeconomic position with other companies. On the other hand Cruz (2012), mentions that companies dedicated to the production of some good must seek innovation to be competitive, however many see this work hindered by business processes and inadequate computer systems, which generate communication failures, errors labor, delays and higher costs. De la Cruz, Morales and Carrasco (2006) argue that the development of capabilities in a sector and its companies helps to boost the competitiveness of a range of products or services, these also profoundly influence the capabilities of growth and competitive differentiation of a range of products far beyond the success or failure of a single product.

 

Solleiro and Castañón (2005) argue that competitiveness is a complex concept that has been studied from different approaches and disciplines. They point out that the competitive performance of the company depends in the first instance on its capacity to manage the internal elements that are under control, complementary to this point out that the competitiveness also depends on the quality of the interactions that the firm has established with a series of both internal and external factors. In the contributions of this author, says that the elements that influence competitiveness in companies are: the successful management of production flows, raw materials and inventories, the successful management of the mechanisms of interaction between planning, marketing, research and formal development, design, engineering and industrial production, the ability to combine research and development and innovation activities in cooperation with universities and other companies, the ability to incorporate more precise definitions of demand characteristics and market developments in design and production of strategies, the ability to successfully organize inter-company relationships with suppliers and customers and the improvement of the capabilities of workers through investment in specialized training and the generation of high levels of responsibility in production workers.

 

On the other hand, Quiroga (2003) proposes a mathematical model to determine the competitiveness of the SME, for which determined the factors and critical variables that incorporate internal elements controllable by companies, as well as external elements that affect their performance. Martínez, Sánchez, Santero & Marcos (2009) suggest that the key indicators that affect competitiveness are external indicators that have to do with the business environment, technology and innovation that is measured in the capacity to launch new products to the market. market, quality, management of human resources, managerial skills in the use of new management tools, internationalization understood as the ability to reach external markets and financing as a necessary source for its permanence. Based on the contributions of the aforementioned authors, Table 1 shows the proposed indicators, which have been taken into account to measure the competitiveness of the company.

 

In general, knowledge in organizations lacks a structure that facilitates their use effectively; On the other hand, the knowledge generated and appropriated through competitiveness and innovation processes, through the acquisition of technology, work with suppliers and customers, interactions with competitors and the business environment, present difficulties to be integrated into the actions and daily activities of the organization. The new techno-economic paradigms, which are generating a "third industrial revolution", increase the dependence of the processes of growth and economic development of the capacities to create value through the incorporation of knowledge, innovation and dissemination of the productive use of technology (ECLAC, 2012). For this reason, it is necessary to develop mechanisms that allow all people to have the full potential of the knowledge that is dispersed in the organization. This involves creating and deploying a knowledge management strategy that integrates five fundamental actions: understanding knowledge needs and opportunities; build relevant knowledge for the business; organize and distribute the knowledge of the organization; create conditions for the application of knowledge of the company and exploit knowledge (Nagles G., Nofal, 2007).

 

Table 1. Business Competitiveness Indicators.

Indicator / Author

Rubio & Aragón (2006)

De la Cruz, Morales & Carrasco (2006)

Solleiro & Castañon (2005)

OCDE (1992)

Quiroga (2003)

Martínez, Santero, Sánchez & Marcos (2009)

External Indicator

 

 

X

 

X

X

Technology

X

X

X

 

X

X

Innovation

X

 

 

 

 

X

Marketing

X

X

X

X

 

 

Human Capital

X

X

X

X

X

X

Management Skills

X

 

 

 

X

X

Financial Resources

X

X

X

 

X

 

Culture

X

 

 

 

 

 

Quality

X

 

X

 

X

X

Production

 

X

 

X

X

 

Logistic

 

X

 

 

 

 

Internal organization

 

 

X

 

X

 

Purchases

 

 

X

X

X

 

Investigation and development

 

 

X

X

X

X

Interaction with suppliers and customers

 

 

 

X

 

 

Internationalization

 

 

 

 

 

X

Financing

 

 

 

 

 

X

Source: Saavedra, Milla and Tapia (2013).

 

COMPETITIVENESS IN ORGANIZATIONS, FROM THE MANAGEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE

For the present investigation, Davenport and Prusak (2001: 13) have been taken as the basis, who define knowledge management as a logical, organized and systematic process to produce, transfer and apply in concrete situations in a harmonious combination of knowledge. , experiences, values, contextual information and expert appraisals that provide a framework for their evaluation and incorporation of new experiences and information, exploiting and developing these assets of knowledge that the organization possesses in order that it is capable of fulfilling its strategic mission. The definition of Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), which describe Knowledge Management as the value created by an organization that is primarily determined by the tacit and explicit transfer of knowledge between individuals and in the conversion of knowledge, has also been taken into account. from one type to another.

 

So it can be said that Knowledge Management in organizations is a strategic discipline of intelligent processes (logical, organized and systematic), which promotes the generation, collaboration, interaction, transfer and use of explicit and tacit knowledge in the conversion of a expertise (a mixture of knowledge, experiences, values and information of individuals), for the organizational learning of an economic unit, generating new competitiveness value in order to achieve its objectives efficiently and effectively. Solleiro and Castañón (2005) argue that the competitive performance of the company depends in the first instance on its capacity to manage the internal elements that are under control, and external factors that it can not control. They also point out that the elements that influence the competitiveness of companies are: 1. The management of production flows (raw materials and inventories), 2. The management of mechanisms of interaction between planning, marketing, research and formal development. , design, engineering in industrial production, 3. The ability to combine research and development and innovation activities in cooperation with universities and other companies, 4. The ability to incorporate more accurate definitions of demand characteristics and market developments in the design and production of strategies, 5. The ability to successfully organize inter-company relationships with suppliers and customers and the improvement of the capabilities of workers through investment in specialized training and the generation of high levels of responsibility in the production workers. Regarding the competitiveness of the MSMEs, based on the contributions of Dini and Stumpo (2011), there are two important characteristics that stand out in relation to the competitive capacity of this type of companies, how they manage their knowledge and the relationship of that knowledge with its performance in the market.

 

As explained in previous lines on knowledge management in organizations and the competitiveness of the company, from the perspective of Knowledge Management, the competitiveness of MSMEs should be understood as: The ability to design, create, produce, offer, distribute and market products (goods, services, ideas or experiences) innovative and high added value superior to those offered in the market, in the conditions, quantity and quality that the client (face or virtual), national and / or international demand.

 

THE MANAGEMENT OF MARKETING.

Philip Kotler (2012), which defines marketing as a social and administrative process from which individuals and groups obtain what they need and want through the creation and exchange of products and values with others. For William Stanton (2007) the foundation of marketing is exchange, in which one party provides something of value to another in exchange for something else of value. For Charles W. Lamb Jr. (2011) marketing is the process of planning and executing the conception, pricing, promotion and distribution of ideas, goods and services to create exchanges that meet individual and company goals. And Carasila and Milton (2008) describe that the new key aspects of marketing are the idea of value, relations with the client and interest groups. Holding that the aspects that are substituted are: the creation of value in substitution of the satisfaction and the interest groups that benefit in substitution of the individuals and the organizations.

 

Based on the coincidences of the previous definitions, it can be observed that marketing makes use of exchange processes, which are generated through the management of knowledge and experiences of individuals in an exchange products and values that satisfy needs and desires. For the purposes of this paper, taking into account the most important elements of the definitions of the aforementioned authors from a knowledge management perspective, marketing is a strategic tool of business management (companies, brands, people, places or products). ), which allows us to create value to satisfy needs, desires and demands, through the commercialization (positioning, exchange and sale) of a new product or not (good, service, idea or experience) directly or indirectly (face-to-face or virtual), based on the research of information and experiences gathered from a specific market (customers, consumers, employees, competitors, suppliers and partners) for the competitiveness of the company (Larios-Gómez, 2013).

 

Blesa, Ripollés and Monferrer (2009) point out that all marketing strategies should lead to the search for the delivery of superior value to the client -through the capacities of innovation and imitation- during the management of customer relations, facilitating the competitive development of the company. For Gyulavári and Kenesei (2012), marketing is a factor of success for the competitiveness of a company, emphasizing that the assets and capabilities of marketing are closely related to business performance. And that competitive companies are those that have better marketing capabilities and have a competitive advantage in flexible product customization and fast and accurate delivery.

 

On the other hand, based on Castellanos (2003), there are two types of approach to knowledge management of marketing strategies in MSMEs: survival strategies, which try to maintain the company's current profitability and progress, which guarantee the future profitability of the organization (sustainability). Finally, returning to Tunc Bozbura (2007), it can be said that Marketing Knowledge Management has four essential dimensions: 1) marketing training in employees, 2) commercial policies and strategies, 3) creation and acquisition of marketing knowledge (external and internal) and 4) effects of marketing organizational culture.

 

THE CITY OF CELAYA IN GUANAJUATO, MEXICO, THE CITY OF BOGOTÁ COLOMBIA AND THE CITY OF PIRACICABA IN SÃO PAULO, BRAZIL.

Celaya in Guanajuato, Mexico.

The municipality of Celaya is located in a valley of the Mexican Bajío surrounded by hills, making it suitable for agriculture, being one of the most productive municipalities in the state of Guanajuato and in the region. Celaya adjoins to the north with the municipality of Comonfort, to the east with the municipalities of Apaseo el Grande and Apaseo el Alto, to the south with the municipality of Tarimoro, to the west with the municipalities of Cortázar and Villagrán, and to the northwest with the municipality of Santa Cruz de Juventino Rosas (IFDM, 2010). Celaya has a territorial extension of 559,879 km², which is equivalent to 1.82%, based on data from the 2010 Population and Housing Census, reflects a total population of 468,469 people, of these 243,445 are women and 225,024 are men and the density of population of the municipality is 835.10 hab./km²., of the total area of the state, most of municipality is composed by the plain of the Bajío region. Celaya is traversed from north to south west by the tributary of the Laja River, for which the economic activities are primarily the manufacturing industry, commerce and the service sector, its main agronomic activities are composed of the cultivation of corn, alfalfa and sorghum and the breeding of cattle and goats. Celaya is known as Puerta de Oro del Bajío thanks to economic development in the Bajío region, as a result of its geographical location that links it with the cities of Querétaro, Guadalajara and Mexico City (IFDM, 2010). Its state contribution to the Gross Domestic Product of the State (PIBE), in 2010, stood at the second position, after León, with an amount of four thousand 807 million dollars (OECD, 2015). In absolute terms, the size of its economy is equivalent to that of the city of Xalapa, Veracruz.

 

The industrial composition, its agricultural resources and its communication infrastructures have attracted during the last years to industries of the mechanical area, household appliances, steel, chemistry, and food processing, highlighting Honda (Plants Cars and Motors), Mazda NKP, Yachiyo, Mabe , Avon Cosmetics, Coca-Cola (FEMSA), PepsiCo (GEPP), Whirlpool, Corporativo Bachoco, Arbomex, Sigma Alimentos, Galletera Gamesa, Kolbenshmidt, Golden Foods, Capistrano, among others. In Celaya, the economic sector with the greatest contribution to municipal GDP comes from the manufacturing industry with 55.9%, followed by the commercial sector with 25.2% and private non-financial services with 13.2% (INEGI, 2012). The municipality of Celaya has an important contribution in the State of Guanajuato, to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which placed it in third place in state contribution in 2012 and currently ranks second, after León (OECD, 2015 ).

 

Piracicaba in São Paulo, Brazil.

The City of Piracicaba is a Brazilian municipality of the State of São Paulo. It is located at 22 ° 43'31 "S 47 ° 38'57". O Coordinates: 22 ° 43'31 "S 47 ° 38'57", being at an altitude of 547 meters. Its estimated population in 2004 was 355,039 inhabitants. It has an area of 1371.8 km² and its population was estimated in 2006 by the IBGE in 552,710 inhabitants and is divided into twelve municipalities. It has a total area of 3,790,291 km². The name of the city comes from a Tupi-Guarani dialect, meaning "place where the fish stops": it is a reference to the great Piracicaba river falls that block the piracema of the fish. The city is an important regional pole of industrial and agricultural development, being located in one of the most industrialized and productive regions of the entire State of São Paulo. The region concentrates an approximate population of 1.2 million inhabitants (IVACE, 2015).

 

One of the main cities of the State of São Paulo, on the banks of the Piracicaba River that was vital for the region. Over the course of the century, agriculture developed in the municipality, with emphasis on the cultivation of sugarcane and coffee, with the end of the coffee cycle and the constant fall of prices of sugarcane, the piracica economy It's stalled. This was reversed from the moment the city became one of the first to industrialize in the country, with the opening of manufacturing plants linked to the metal-mechanical sector and equipment for the production of sugar, whose activities currently make Piracicaba has the 47th largest Brazilian GDP, and is home to one of the main industrial centers of the region, in addition to several renowned universities, such as the Luiz de Queiroz Higher School of Agriculture (ESALQ), belonging to the University of São Paulo (USP), the Faculty of Dentistry of Piracicaba, belonging to the State University of Campinas (Unicamp), and the Methodist University of Piracicaba (IVACE, 2015). The industrial complex of the Piracicaba region is formed by more than five thousand industries, highlighting the activities of the metallurgical, mechanical, textile, food and fuel sectors (production of petrochemicals and alcohol).

 

Bogota in Colombia.

Bogotá is the capital of Colombia and the largest in the country. It is a commercial point of reference, multicultural diversity and modern constructions with others that evoke its colonial past is an important city for Colombians. With 10.7 million inhabitants (22% of the national population), in Bogota they live close to 8 million and in Cundinamarca 2.7 million inhabitants (DANE, 2010). Bogotá-Cundinamarca is the region that contributes the most to the national economy, with a quarter of the national GDP and with its companies it is the country's service center, in financial services and telecommunications (29% of the country's total) it is a leader in the capital ranking of large corporations with large national operations such as Ecopetrol, Terpel, Avianca, Claro and Bavaria. Therefore, it has the largest labor market with nearly 4.2 million employees and an occupancy rate of 64% (DANE, 2016). And in this context, in 2016 Bogotá was considered among the most important cities in Latin America, as the fifth most attractive city for business (Chamber of Commerce of Bogotá, 2017)

 

As can be seen, these three cities have a similar economic and social profile, even in the strategic geographical location for business, they are important cities that contribute to the economy of their respective countries and during their development they have gone from being agricultural cities to then be cities that host the main industries with the contribution to GDP in more than 40%.

 

PROBLEM.

The competence of the MIPES lies in the ability of the company to design and implement strategies, but unfortunately, not all of them have enough information and experience to make effective decisions; especially if we talk about small businesses, that due to their low participation in foreign trade, their limited access to sources of financing, disengagement from the most dynamic sectors, deficient training of their human resources, lack of linkage with the academic sector and need of a culture of process innovation and technological development, among others (Secretaría de Economía, 2006), which limits its participation in the market, as well as its administrative practice. Larios-Gómez (2016b) describes that in a study conducted by the OECD in 2012, that in the latter, Latin American SMEs (including those of Mexico and Brazil), that:

"They can only survive in the process of industrial development if they produce specific goods and services that do not compete with mass-produced products of large industrial companies, which is why the entrepreneur must visualize the type of product that will offer for its perfect administration" (page 112).

 

According to Jiménez, Domínguez and Martínez (2009) the most used marketing strategies in organizations that affect competitiveness are those of product quality and price management. While for Estrada, García and Sánchez (2009), competitive success is based on five internal factors of small and medium enterprises: a) human resources, b) strategic planning, c) innovation, d) technology and e) quality certification. Although these authors do not directly analyze marketing, in general terms, they do mention that in order for a company to innovate constantly, the proper use of strategic marketing planning is indispensable.

 

Marketing can be used by any type of business, regardless of its bouquet or size. However, the reality is that micro or small companies do not have the resources or experience to exploit marketing in its most sophisticated forms, they apply marketing differently and are based on intuitive decisions (Czinkota and Kotabe, 2001). If marketing is a key factor for the competitiveness of large and small companies in the United States, England, Germany or Spain. So, can Mexican, Colombian and Brazilian MIPES be competitive from a marketing perspective? Is Marketing Management from the perspective of strategic planning, a key factor for the competitiveness of the MiPE, in Mexico, Colombia and Brazil?

 

2. Materiales y métodos

 

This is an empirical investigation based on a survey, made up of three samples. The first integrated by MIPES companies in the City of Celaya in the State of Guanajuato, the second by MIPES companies in the City of Piracicaba in the State of São Paulo and the third by MIPES companies of the City of Bogotá in Colombia. Each sample was for convenience, of 14 companies (4 buses of the commercial sector and 10 small ones of the service sector), for both countries. The sample of MIPES of the commercial sector was integrated by convenience stores, grocers, pharmacies, stationers, hardware stores, hardware stores, miscellanies and clothing boutiques. And the sample of MIPES in the service sector was made up of dry cleaners, laundries, advertising agencies, mechanical workshops, educational counseling, basic education schools, shoe repairs, inexpensive kitchens, restaurants, cell repairers and service centers, maintenance and repair of computer equipment and household appliances.

 

The design of the research is with a quantitative approach of a transversal, non-experimental type (Malhotra, 2009, Kerlinger & Lee, 2002). The objective of the present is to identify the differences in the value of the marketing knowledge created by the MIPES of Mexico, Colombia and in Brazil, through the tacit and explicit transfer of knowledge and the conversion of knowledge for the competitiveness of the market. Taking into account their ability to produce, offer and market products in the conditions, quantity and quality that the market demands.

 

To carry out the diagnosis of the processes of Marketing Management, the Cycle of Knowledge Management model of Probst, Raub and Romhardt (2001) was taken, because it contemplates strategic aspects of the organizations, in addition to giving greater emphasis to the measurement and assessment of knowledge that also serves as feedback to the organization interested in managing their knowledge, for which the model was adapted from the marketing perspective, from an instrument applied in a research carried out to PYMES of Sonora, Mexico (Pérez-Soltero , Leal, Barceló-Valenzuela, León, 2013).

 

3. Resultados

Interviews were conducted with the Directors / Owners and Managers / Heads of the MIPES. Before presenting the results on the composition of the sample, it should be noted that for the grouping of companies -subjects of study- the Law for the Development of the Competitiveness of Micro, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises was taken into account for Mexico (2009), which classifies SMEs in Mexico by the number of workers, the sector in which it operates and by the range of the annual sales amount (Table 2). In the case of Brazil, the size of the company was taken into account, according to the category of the Brazilian Service of Support for Micro and Small Enterprises (Sebrae for its acronym in Portuguese) is a private entity that promotes competitiveness and sustainable development of small and micro enterprises (SEBRAE, 2013), which considers the number of employees, in Law 11,196 / 2005 (SIMPLES). Law 9,841 / 1999 (Statute of the Microenterprise and Small Business Company). Ministry of Development, Industry and Foreign Trade. Department of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises / 2002 (Table 3). And in the case of Colombia, based on the "Law 905 of August 2 of 2004", by means of which Law 590 of 2000 on promotion of the development of micro, small and medium-sized Colombian companies is modified and other provisions, as described in Table 3, and based on Article 2 that says: "For all purposes, micro means including the small and medium-sized enterprises Famiempresas, any unit of economic exploitation, performed by natural or legal person , in business, agricultural, industrial, commercial or service activities, rural or urban [...] ".

 

Table 2. Classification of MIPES in Mexico.

 

 

 

 

Source: Law for the Development of the Competitiveness of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, 2015.

 

Table 2. Classification of MIPES in Brazil.

Source: Law 11,196 / 2005 (SIMPLES). Law 9,841 / 1999 (Statute of the Microenterprise and Small Business Company). Ministry of Development, Industry and Foreign Trade. Department of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises / 2002

 

Table 3. Classification of the MIPES in Colombia.

 

Source: "LAW 905 AUGUST 2, 2004" in http://www.mipymes.gov.co/publicaciones/2761/definicion_tamano_empresarial_micro_pequena_mediana_o_grande

 

In Table 4, the results can be observed in relation to the comparison of Marketing Management in micro and small companies in Brazil and Mexico. The scale was from 1 to 5, where one is totally disagree and 5 totally agree.

 

a) Planning:

• The MIPES of the commerce sector of Celaya, Guanajuato-Mexico does not carry out in a conclusive way the planning of the marketing activities. With an average of 2.32, it can be interpreted that there is no interest in the development of the mission, vision, objectives and planning of marketing, regardless of whether it exists in general terms. The same situation happens in the MIPES of Piracicaba, São Paulo-Brazil, in spite of obtaining an average of 2.98, it is not completely favorable, since it can also be said that these MIPES do not carry out planning in the marketing activities. Regarding the MIPES in Bogotá Colombia, in the Commerce sector the average was 2.87, it can also be interpreted that there is no interest in the implementation of the mission, vision, objectives and planning of the marketing.

 

• The MIPES of the service sector of Celaya, Guanajuato-Mexico have a relatively higher interest, due to having a strategic marketing plan (interest in an average of 2.27). The design, development and implementation of strategic marketing planning begins with the existence of the marketing mission that is based on the mission of the company, as well as the vision and objectives of marketing. Almost the same situation happens in the MIPES of Piracicaba, São Paulo-Brazil, despite obtaining an average of 3.10, it is not completely favorable, since it can also be said that these MIPES do not carry out planning in the marketing activities completely, despite to have plans for the positioning and improvement of their service. For companies in Colombia in the Services sector, the average is 3.23, better compared to the commercial sector, but not overwhelming in the interest of companies to implement corporate philosophy from the perspective of marketing.

 

b) Organizational Culture:

• In the aspect of the Organizational Culture of Marketing, the results are more encouraging, that is, although the MIPES of the commerce sector of Celaya, Guanajuato-Mexico lack marketing planning, if they are aware of the current impact of the strategies and knowledge of marketing in companies, even more so in yours. The mean for this construct is 3.38. The same situation happens in the MIPES of Piracicaba, São Paulo-Brazil, despite obtaining an average of 3.99, these companies are aware of the importance of planning the impact that marketing can have on their organizational culture, through manuals, internal communication and the climate that is generated in the company. For micro and small companies in Colombia, they are indifferent in the impact of the organizational culture. The average was 3.12, translating into neither agree nor disagree that the organizational culture, advantage or not to the company and the intervention of internal marketing in this case.

 

• The MIPES of the service sector of Celaya, Guanajuato-Mexico, presents a better marketing organizational culture than the companies of the service sector, with an average of 4.09. It can be denoted the concern that impacts the organizational environment of the company in marketing decisions, especially when the essence or object of operation of the companies are related to intangible products such as services and social mission. With regard to the MIPES of Piracicaba, São Paulo-Brazil, the average was 4.52, so we deduce that these companies are almost completely interested, concerned and busy in having a pleasant working environment and efficient communication between members. of the company, empowering marketing tools. For the MIPES of services in Bogota, if it is important and they agree that the organizational culture from the marketing perspective, it is relevant and impacts on the competitiveness of the company (average of 4.00).

 

d) Technology:

• Regarding technology for the development and implementation of marketing strategies, the MIPES of the commerce sector of the City of Celaya, Guanajuato-Mexico do not use, own or invest in technology such as PCs, printers, internet access, bar codes, closed circuits, or software for the administration of customers, web sites, telemarketing or use of emails, from the perspective of marketing (with the current electronic invoicing, only limited to using email to send invoices to their customers). The average is 2.22, contrary happens in the MIPES of Brazil. The MIPES of Piracicaba, São Paulo-Brazil, obtained an average of 4.90, who apart from being concerned, are concerned about having the necessary technological tools for competitiveness in the market, with collection terminals and use of electronic platforms with their respective use of e-commerce. The Colombian companies agree and are confident that the marketing technology in their operations gives them competitiveness and makes use of it, the average is 4.45, being higher than the average of companies in Mexico.

 

• The MIPES of the City of Celaya, Guanajuato-Mexico, of the service sector, use not very frequently tools for Customer Relationship Management CRM's (for its acronym in English: Costumer Relationship Management), Telemarketing, Web sites and the email to be in communication with their customers, the average was 3.49. Almost similarly, there are the MIPES of Piracicaba, São Paulo-Brazil, since with an average of 4.05, they indicate that they make use of technological tools for the competitiveness of their operations. Through free and commercial software, such as CMR platforms and Telemarketing. Even higher the average, is for Bogota companies (4.49), which means that companies are completely safe that technology is a competitive advantage over other competitors in the market. Using very frequently CRM's Customer Relationship Management tools, Telemarketing, Web sites and email

 

Table 4. Marketing Management in the Strategic Planning of MIPES México Vs Brasil

Variable

Bogotá, Colombia

Piracicaba, São Paulo

-Brasil

Celaya, Guanajuato

-México

 

Comercio

Servicios

Comercio

Servicios

Comercio

Servicios

Estrategia

2.87

3.23

2.98

3.10

2.32

2.27

Cultura Organizacional

3.12

4.00

3.99

4.52

3.38

4.09

Tecnología

4.45

4.49

4.90

4.05

2.22

3.49

 

Source: Own elaboration with SPSS 21.

 

4. Discusión

This research was also performed the ANOVA test for the comparison of means of three groups classified as MIPES-BR (micro and small companies in Brazil), MIPES-CO (micro and small companies in Colombia) and MIPES-MX (micro and small companies) from Mexico). Under a retrospective ex post facto design (León & Montero, 2003), which allowed to analyze the means of the marketing competitiveness factor variable, as shown in Table 5, seeking the greatest representation of the population of each group. For which the following have been defined as dependent and independent variables:

 

• The dependent variable for the present investigation is the competitive management of marketing, defined as the use of knowledge management for the optimization of marketing in the company.

• The independent variables are strategic marketing planning, organizational culture from a marketing perspective and the use of marketing technology.

 

Table 5. Variables Model.

Ítems

 Variables Independientes

Variable Dependiente

 

variable factor competitividad de marketing

 

Planeación estratégica

 

 

 

Gestión competitiva de marketing

 

 

Cultura organizacional

 

 

 

Uso de tecnología

Source: self made.

 

Based on the operationalization of variables, the following hypotheses have been determined:

• The means of the groups μ1 (MIPES-BR) μ2 (MIPES-CO) and μ3 (MIPES-MX) are equal and therefore the differences found can be explained by chance. That is, there are no differences between the marketing competitiveness factor in the MIPES of the three countries: Null hypothesis (H0): μ1 = μ2 = μ3

• The means of the groups μ1 (MIPES-BR) μ2 (MIPES-CO) and μ3 (MIPES-MX) are not equal, or at least one of the groups has a different average from the rest of the groups. That is, if there are differences between the marketing competitiveness factor in the MIPES of the three countries: Alternative hypothesis (H1): μ1 ≠ μ2 ≠ μ3.

 

Based on the data collected and analyzed with SPSS 21, for the analysis of ANOVA, the Medias (M), the standard deviation (SD), the standard error of the mean (SEM) and the confidence interval (per cent) were calculated per group. IC). As can be seen in Table 5 and 6, the means compared: In the variable-factor competitiveness of marketing (VCMkt), among the groups of MIPES are different. Obtaining a comparative average of 2.51 for the MIPES-MX (DT: 1.582 and EEM: 0.99), which can translate into low marketing competitiveness in the MIPES of Mexico. With an average of 3.49 for the MIPES-CO (DT: 0.983 and EEM: 0.68), it can be said that there is a slight marketing competitiveness in the MIPES of Colombia and with an average of 4.33 for the MIPES-BR (DT: 0.793 and EEM: 0.33), it can be affirmed that there is an adequate marketing competitiveness in the MIPES of Brazil.

 

Table 6. Descriptions of Marketing Competitiveness (VCMkt) by religious groups.

N

M

DT

EEM

95%  IC

Mín.

Max.

Satisfacción

µ3 Enfoque MIPES-MX: VCMkt

55

2.51

1.582

0.99

(1.23 – 2.34)

1.00

5.00

Satisfacción

 µ2 Enfoque MIPES-CO: VCMkt

61

3.49

0.983

0.68

(2.67 – 4.12)

1.00

5.00

Satisfacción

µ1 Enfoque MIPES-BR: VCMkt

59

4.33

0.793

0.33

(3.45 – 4.89)

1.00

5.00

VCMkt Total

175

4.71

0.642

0.78

(1.12 – 4.98)

1.00

5.00

Source: Own elaboration with SPSS 21.

 

In Table 6, the result of the ANOVA table can be observed through the SPSS 21 program. The total variability has been decomposed into two rows: sum of inter-group squares (between the different groups) and sum of squares intra-groups (within each group), divided by their corresponding degrees of freedom to obtain their ANOVA variances (Stockburger, 1998). The sum of inter-group squares measures the dispersion of the mean of each group with respect to the total average (9,855). In this case there are 3 groups, the degrees of freedom are 2 (they are calculated as the number of groups minus one). Therefore, the inter-group variance is 9.855 / 2 which is equal to 4.9275. The sum of squares intra-groups measures the dispersion of each observation with respect to the mean of its group. The degrees of freedom are therefore taken into account and are calculated as the number of cases (14) minus the number of groups (3) (Martínez, Sánchez-Villegas and Faulín, 2006). Therefore the intra-group variance (also called residual variance) is 102.008 / 11 which is equal to 9.273454.

Once the inter and intra group variances were calculated, the quotient between both was calculated and checked if the observed effect (numerator) is so large that it can not be explained by the random error (denominator). The quotient of both variances is called F. Resulting in F = 4.9275 / 0.705; F = 6.9893 (Table 6). Once the value of the distribution F is known and is tabulated, the contrast statistic was performed and exceeded a certain critical value, so that the differences are statistically significant. In particular, the value of F2, 11, 14 has an associated p of 0.002. This value of p associated with F corresponds to a distribution F of 2 degrees of freedom in the numerator and 11 in the denominator. Then, with an associated p of 0.002, the null hypothesis (Ho) is rejected: μ1 = μ2 = μ3. And it is concluded that there are differences between the degree of marketing competitiveness in the MIPES of the three countries: Mexico, Colombia and Brazil. Because there is a difference in all the means of the groups μ1 (MIPES-BR) μ2 (MIPES-CO) and μ3 (MIPES-MX). Or at least in a group whose average is different from the average of the rest of the groups. That is to say, the means of competitiveness between Mexico, Colombia and Brazil are statistically different, with the highest average being the MIPES of Brazil, being these more competitive of the three, followed by the MIPES of Colombia and at the end of Mexico: The means of the groups μ1 (MIPES-BR) μ2 (MIPES-CO) and μ3 (MIPES-MX) are not the same, or at least one of the groups has a different average from the rest of the groups. That is, if there are differences between the marketing competitiveness of the Mexican, Colombian and Brazilian MIPES: Alternative hypothesis (H1): μ1 ≠ μ2 ≠ μ3.

 

Table 6. ANOVA table.

Satisfacción

Suma de cuadrados

gl

Media cuadrática

F

P

(Sig.)

Inter-grupos

9.855

2

4.9275

6.9893

0.002

Intra-grupos

102.008

11

0.705

Total

111.863

14

gl: Grados de libertad; F: Estadístico F de Fisher-Snedecor.

Source: Own elaboration with SPSS 21.

 

5. Conclusiones

SME in Mexico, in Colombia and in Brazil, almost always share the same characteristics, the most outstanding from the GC approach is the empirical management and without sector expertise to be competitive from a marketing perspective, since the lack of of strategic plans or programs in this discipline, makes them disappear or have problems in their marketing and positioning processes. Marketing can be used by any type of business, regardless of its bouquet or size. However, the reality is that micro or small companies do not have the resources or experience to exploit marketing in its most sophisticated forms, they apply marketing differently and are based on intuitive decisions and are reaffirmed by this study.

 

Marketing must be seen as a key factor for the competitiveness of companies. As a strategic tool of business management (companies, brands, people, places or products), which will give value to the market, covering the market bases of satisfying needs, desires and demands, through marketing (positioning, exchange and sale) of your new product or not (good, service, idea or experience). In the different marketing channels, without high investments, either directly or indirectly (face-to-face or virtual), because it collects, analyzes, synthesizes and manages the research of information and experiences gathered from a specific market (customers, consumers, employees, competitors, suppliers and partners) for the competitiveness of the company.

 

Referencias bibliográficas

Aboal, D.; Arias-Ortiz, E.; Crespi, G.; Garda, P.; Rasteletti, A.; Rubalcaba, L.; Vairo M.; y Vargas F. (2015). La innovación y la nueva economía de servicios en América Latina y el Caribe. Retos e implicaciones de política. Disponible: www.cinve.org.uy. Montevideo, Uruguay.

Altenburg, T. (2011), “Industrial Policy in Developing Countries. Overview and lessons from seven country cases”, Discussion Paper 4/11, German Development Institute, Bonn.

Altenburg, T. y U. Eckhardt (2006), Productivity Enhancement and Equitable Development: Challenges for SME Development, UNIDO, Viena.

Altman, D.G. and Bland, J.M. Statistics Notes: Comparing several groups using analysis of variance. Br Med J, 1996. 312: p. 1472-1473.

Blesa, A., Ripollés, M. y Monferrer, D. (2009). Influencia de las capacidades de marketing en la competitividad de las nuevas empresas internacionales. Investigaciones Económicas, 2 (33), 233-270.

Cámara de comercio de Bogotá. (2017). Balance de la economía de la región Bogotá – Cundinamarca. Dirección de Gestión del Conocimiento. Producción Editorial 2017. ISSN: 2357-409

Carasila, C. y Milton, A. (2008). El concepto de marketing: pasado y presente. Red de Revistas Científicas de América, Latina, el Caribe, España y Portugal, 2 (14), 391-412.

Castellanos M. (2003). PYMES innovadoras. Cambio de estrategias e instrumentos. Revista escuela de Administración de Negocios. 47, 10-33.

CEPAL (2012), “Cambio estructural para la igualdad: una visión integrada de desarrollo”, Trigésimo cuarto periodo de sesiones de la CEPAL, LC/G.2524 (SES.34/3), Naciones Unidas, Santiago.

Cruz, A. (2012), Pequeñas empresas. Innovación indispensable para empresas de manufactura, Recuperado de http://www.pymempresario.com/2012/02/innovacion- indispensable-para-empresas-demanufactura

Czinkota, M. R., & Kotabe, M. (2001). Administración de la mercadotecnia.

DANE. (2010). Proyecciones nacionales y departamentales de población 2005-2020. Bogotá: DANE. Obtenido de http://www.dane.gov.co/files/investigaciones/poblacion/proyepobla06_20/7Proyecciones_poblacion.pdf

DANE. (2016). Gran Encuesta Integrada de Hogares - Mercado laboral - Anexos (Tercer Trimestre). Bogotá: DANE. Obtenido de http://www.dane.gov.co/index.php/estadisticas-portema/mercado-laboral/empleo-y-desempleo

Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (2001). Conocimiento en acción. Cómo las organizaciones manejan lo que saben. Buenos Aires: Prentice Hall.

De la Cruz, Morales y Carrasco (2006). Determinación de la competitividad en la PYME Latinoamericana, Revista de investigación Institucional, pp. 3. Referencia en Línea. http://www.alafec.unam.mx/docs/pymes.pdf

Dini, M. y G. Stumpo (coords.) (2004), Pequeñas y medianas empresas y eficiencia colectiva. Estudios de caso en América Latina, CEPAL-Siglo XXI Editores, México, D.F.

Dini, M. y G. Stumpo (coords.) (2011), Pequeñas y medianas empresas y eficiencia colectiva. Estudios de caso en América Latina, CEPAL-Siglo XXI Editores, México, D.F.

DOF (2015), Diario Oficial de la Federación publicó la Ley para el Desarrollo de la Competitividad de la Micro, Pequeña y Mediana Empresa. México.

Estrada y Dutrénit (2007), Gestión Del Conocimiento En Pymes Y Desempeño Competitivo, Engevista, v. 9, n. 2, p. 129-148, dezembro 2007

Fernández, M.M. y Torres, P.T. (2006). La Economía de Servicios. Centro de estudios de la economía cubana, UH. Disponible: https://www.nodo50.org/cubasigloXXI/economia/martinf_310307.pdf

Gyulavári, T. y Kenesei, Z. (2012). The Impact of Marketing Resources on Corporate Competitiveness. Tržište, 1 (24), 7-21.

Howald, F. , (2001), Obstáculos al desarrollo de las PyMES causadas por el estado, Chile: McGraw-Hill.

IFDM. Instituto para el Federalismo y el Desarrollo Municipal (2010). Enciclopedia de los Municipios de México. Estado de Guanajuato. Disponible en www.inafed.gob.mx/work/enciclopedia/EMM11guanajuato/index.html, Consultado el 12 de julio de 2013

IMCO (2006), Instituto Mexicano para la Competitividad, Situación de la Competitividad de México 2006: Punto de Inflexión, IMCO: México.

INEGI (2012), Directorio Estadístico Nacional de Unidades Económicas.

IVACE- Oficina Económica y Comercial de España en Brasilia. (2015).

IVACE. (2015) Oficina Económica y Comercial de España en Brasilia.

Jiménez Castañeda, J. C., Domínguez Hernández, M. L., & Martínez Castro, C. J. (2009). Estrategias y competitividad de los negocios de artesanía en México. Pensamiento & Gestión, (26), 165-190.

Kerlinger (2002) Investigación del Comportamiento, McGraw Hill: México.

Kotler, P. (2012). Kotler on marketing. Simon and Schuster.

Lamb Jr, C. W., & Dunne, P. M. (Eds.). (2011). Theoretical developments in marketing. Marketing Classics Press.

Larios-Gómez, E. (2014). Mercadotecnia de las instituciones de educación superior, O Caderno Profissional de Marketing Unimep (CPMark) UNIMEP, 2(1), 15-29.

Larios-Gómez, E. (2015), La Gestión de la Competitividad en la MIPYME Poblana: Diagnóstico Empírico desde la Gestión del Conocimiento. Estrategias Competitivas y Desarrollo territorial de las Pymes, López & Molina (Coord.), México: Pearson

Larios-Gomez, E. (2016a). La Gestión de la Competitividad en la MIPYME Mexicana: Diagnóstico Empírico desde la Gestión del Conocimiento. Revista de Administração da Unimep, 14(2).

Larios-Gomez, E. (2016b). La competitividad de mercadotecnia y la gestión del conocimiento en la mipyme del sector retailing en Celaya, México. Revista de Administração, Contabilidade e Economia da Fundace, 8(1).

León, O. G. y Montero, I. (2003). Métodos de investigación en Psicología y Educación (3ª ed.). Madrid: McGraw-Hill.

Malhotra, N. (2009). Investigación de mercados. 5ª Ed. Pearson: México.

Martínez González, M.A., Sánchez-Villegas, A., and Faulín Fajardo, F.J. Comparación de k medias (tre o más grupos). Bioestadística Amigable. 2ª Edición. Ed: Díaz de Santos. 2006: p. 419-469.

Martínez, M., Sánchez, L., Santero, R. & Marcos, M. (2009). Factores de competitividad de la Pyme española 2008. España: Fundación EOI.

Nagles G., Nofal (2007). La gestión del conocimiento como fuente de innovación, Revista Escuela de Administración de Negocios, (Septiembre-Diciembre): Disponible en:<http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=20611495008> ISSN 0120-8160

Nonaka, I.; Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press, 284.

OCDE (2012), Entrepreneurship at a Glance 2012, OCDE, París.

OCDE/CEPAL (2013), Perspectivas económicas de América Latina 2013, Políticas De Pymes Para El Cambio Estructural.

OCDE-Organización de Cooperación y Desarrollo Económico (2015). OECD.StatExtracts. OECD´s Library. Disponible en http://stats.oecd.org/viewhtml.aspx?datasetcode=CITIES&lang=en# consultado el 21 de abril de 2015.

OECD y “Fundación IDEA” (2010) Consolidación de la competencia económica y la mejora regulatoria para la competitividad en México, Estudio de caso. Puebla, Prácticas y políticas exitosas para la mejora regulatoria y el emprendedurismo a nivel subnacional. México.

OMC. (2010). Organización Mundial del Comercio. La medición del comercio de servicios. Módulo de formación preparado por la OMC/WTO. Manual de Estadísticas del Comercio Internacional de Servicios 2010. Octubre de 2010

Pérez, A. y Pérez, O. (2008). Competitividad y acumulación de capacidades tecnológicas en la industria manufacturera mexicana. Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas. Recuperado de: http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/src/inicio/ArtPdfRed.jsp?iCve=60111154005.

Pérez-Soltero, A., Leal Soto, V., Barceló Valenzuela, M., & León Duarte, J. A. (2013). Un diagnóstico de la gestión del conocimiento en las pymes del sector restaurantero para identificar áreas de mejora en sus procesos productivos. Intangible Capital, 9(1).

Probst, G.; Raub S.; Romhardt, K. (2001). Administre el Conocimiento: Los Pilares del éxito. Traducido del (Ingles) por Núñez A. México: Pearson Educación.

Quiroga, D. (2003). Modelo matemático para determinar la competitividad de las Pymes. Cuadernos de Investigación y divulgación. Cali, Colombia: Corporación Universitaria Autónoma de Occidente.

Rubalcaba, L. (2007). The New Services Economy: Challenges and Policy Implications for Europe. Cheltenham, United Kingdom and Northampton, United States: Edward Elgar.

Saavedra, Milla y Tapia (2013). Determinación de la competitividad de la PYME en el nivel micro: El caso de del Distrito Federal, México.

SEBRAE -Serviço Brasileiro de Apoio às Micro e Pequenas Empresas (2013). Pequenos Negócios. Desafios e Perspectivas Sebrae Vol. 5. http://www.bibliotecas.sebrae.com.br/chronus/ARQUIVOS_CHRONUS/bds/bds.nsf/b449b8c1b93575d03b773ffadfc757bc/$File/4508.pdf

Secretaría de Economía, (2006). Programa PIAPYME. Secretaría de Economía. Recuperado de http://www.economia.gob.mx/7p=7050

Serrano. J. C. (2011). “El sector servicios en la economía global: transformaciones y consecuencias” (Temario de oposiciones de Geografía e Historia), Clío 37.

Solleiro y Castañón (2005). Competitividad y sistemas de Innovación: Los retos para la inserción de México en el Contexto Global. Revista Iberoamericana, vol. 5, pp. 15. Referencia en Línea. Recuperado de http://www.oei.es/salactsi/solleiro.pdf.

Stanton William, J., Etzel Michael, J., & Walker Bruce, J. (2007). Fundamentos de marketing. Décima Edición. Mc Graw Hill, 581.

Stockburger, D.W. ANOVA. Why Multiple Comparisons Using t-tests is NOT the Analysis of Choice. http://davidmlane.com/hyperstat/intro_ANOVA.html. 1998.

Tunc Bozbura, F. (2007). Knowledge management practices in Turkish SMEs. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 20(2), 209-221.

 

 

 

 



[1] Artículo original derivado del proyecto de investigación titulado THE COMPETITIVENESS OF MARKETING IN THE SME OF THE COMMERCIAL SECTOR AND SERVICES IN LATIN AMERICA: COMPARATIVE MEXICO-BRAZIL-COLOMBIA, fecha de realización entre 2018

[2] Docente invitado en Estancia Posdoctoral en la Universidad Oriente, adscrito a la Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, herr.larios@gmail.com, ORCID 0000-0002-3514-1319

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.