International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET)
Volume 10, Issue 04, April 2019, pp. 22-30, Article ID: IJMET_10_04_004
Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijmet/issues.asp?JType=IJMET&VType=10&IType=4
ISSN Print: 0976-6340 and ISSN Online: 0976-6359
© IAEME Publication
Scopus Indexed
THE EFFECT OF CONTINUOUS
RECONFIGURATION CAPABILITY ON
DISRUPTIVE BUSINESS MODEL INNOVATION
STUDY ON INDONESIA DIGITAL STARTUPS
Kurnadi Gularso
Binus Business School, Doctor of Research in Management
Bina Nusantara University, Jakarta, 11540, Indonesia
Tirta Nugraha Mursitama
International Relations Department, Faculty of Humanities
Bina Nusantara University, Jakarta, 11480, Indonesia
Pantri Heriyati, Boto Simatupang
Binus Business School, Doctor of Research in Management
Bina Nusantara University, Jakarta, 11540, Indonesia
ABSTRACT
Several studies have indicated that digital (tech) startups’ behaviors tend toward
disruptive business model innovation in facing volatility, uncertainty, complexity,
ambiguity (VUCA) environment. One of the necessary capabilities to perform such
innovation as well as to attain an excellent firm operational performance is continuous
reconfiguration capability. This paper aims at examining the effect of continuous
reconfiguration capability on disruptive business model innovation on Indonesia digital
(tech) startups. This study applied a quantitative method with a partial least-squares
structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) approach to analyze the data obtained. The
survey was used to understand the perceptions of Founders/C-Level out of 107
Indonesia startups. This study showed an essential contribution to the literature about
the role of transformational capability viz continuous reconfiguration capability for
digital (tech) startups as an initiator in executing disruptive business model innovation.
The study recommends startups to have this capability that should be followed by
determining strategic orientations, especially entrepreneurship orientation, market
orientation, and technology orientation.
Key words: Continuous reconfiguration capability, Disruptive business model
innovation, Digital startups
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
22
editor@iaeme.com
Kurnadi Gularso, Tirta Nugraha Mursitama, Pantri Heriyati, Boto Simatupang
Cite this Article: Kurnadi Gularso, Tirta Nugraha Mursitama, Pantri Heriyati, Boto
Simatupang, The Effect of Continuous Reconfiguration Capability on Disruptive
Business Model Innovation Study on Indonesia Digital Startups, International Journal
of Mechanical Engineering and Technology 10(4), 2019, pp. 22-30.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/issues.asp?JType=IJMET&VType=10&IType=4
1. INTRODUCTION
Today, in the era of the digital economy, digitization has urged and promoted the
implementation of business model innovation in incumbent and startup business (Hafkesbrink
& Schroll, 2010; Birkinshaw & Ansari, 2015; Teece & Linden, 2017). Further, digital (tech)
startups – hereafter in this paper is named “startups” – should create disruptive business model
innovation to achieve a significant growth and viable business (PwC, April 2013); Balboni,
Bortoluzzi, Tivan, Tracogna, and Venier, 2014; O’Connell, Delaney, & Moriarty, 2015).
However, there is scant research on disruptive business model innovation by startups as the
initiator. There are also a few research on the antecedents of disruptive business model
innovation as first mover strategy particularly in the startups' industry which is facing VUCA
(volatility, uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity) business environment.
Dynamic capabilities have long been believed to be the ability of businesses to face fastmoving business environments which are characterized by rapid technological change (Teece,
2007) which is currently known as VUCA. Three dimensions of dynamic capabilities are
sensing, seizing, and reconfiguring. Reconfiguring as a transformation capability plays an
important role especially in the implementation of innovation. Reconfiguration should be
continuously conducted to accommodate the continuous innovations being implemented in
ever-changing and uncertainty environments.
Startups have an entrepreneurial mentality that encourages them to search and create new
opportunities to serve their targeted customers. Startups also have always to respond to the
market changes and technological turbulence to make them viable and continue managing
significant growth. Strategic orientations will align the startups’ organization to manage their
goals.
The research question here is “What are the effect of continuous reconfiguration capability
on strategic orientation and eventually the achievement of disruptive business model innovation
of Indonesia startups?” Hence, the general objective of this research is to understand the
importance of building continuous reconfiguration capability for startups to make their business
viable and get significant growth. The benefit of this study is to contribute to the theory that
continuous reconfiguration capability requires the mediation of a strategic orientation for
startups in applying the disruptive business model innovation.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
‘Dynamic capabilities’ is the firm’s ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and
external competencies to address rapidly changing environments. These enterprise capabilities
are difficult to replicate and should adapt to changing customer and technological opportunities
(Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997; Teece, 2007). Reconfiguration or transformation entails
recombining and modifying existing resources (Teece, 2014).
The continuous aspect of reconfiguration capability is essential to respond to the everchanging environment such as customers, competitors, and technologies (McGrath, 2013;
Teece, 2014). Hawass (2014) suggested after his finding, to effectively develop a
reconfiguration capability, a firm has to continuously participate in technological alliances and
develop a close cooperative relationship with suppliers, customers, and rivals to acquire updated
product-market information.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
23
editor@iaeme.com
The Effect of Continuous Reconfiguration Capability on Disruptive Business Model Innovation
Study on Indonesia Digital Startups
In this research, continuous reconfiguration capability is defined as “the ability to transform
by continually rearranging the company's resources in the form of intangible resources (such as
capabilities) and tangible resources,” (McGrath, 2013; Banjongprasert, 2013; Teece, Pisano, &
Shuen, 1997; Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Wang & Ahmed, 2007; Barreto, 2010).
Strategic orientation represents aspects of leadership. It refers to one of eight dimensions of
the leadership competency, i.e., critical thinking (Chung-herrera & Lankau, 2003). A growing
stream of studies today endorse the adoption of different strategic orientations such as
innovation orientation, technology orientation, entrepreneurial orientation, quality orientation,
and productivity orientation (Voss & Giraud, 2011; Zhou, Yim, & Tse, 2005). Entrepreneurial
orientation and learning orientation may combine or act in between the market orientation and
technology orientation (Schindehutte, Morris, & Kocak, 2008; Hakala, 2010).
The implications of strategic orientation are innovation capability/innovation success and
competitive advantage towards market performance (Tutar, Nart, & Bingöl, 2015); market
performance and financial performance (Hsu, Tsai, Hsieh, & Wang, 2014); firm performance
(Mohd, Mohd, Mamun, & Breen, 2017; Gergely, 2016); organizational performance (Obeidat,
2016; Al & Province, 2016); business performance (Fernandes & Solimun, 2017), corporate
entrepreneurship (Kakapour et al., 2016), growth with related resource moderation, (Gupta &
Basu, 2014).
Startups generally conduct strategies through DBMI, which is new to the industry because
the business model is the primary driver to a startup’s growth (Balboni, Bortoluzzi, Tivan,
Tracogna, & Venier, 2014;(PwC, April 2013). Many DBMIs searches for opportunities from
unserved customers through low-cost offerings. That they will eventually take over the
incumbents’ market share (Charitou, C. & Markides, C., 2003; Markides, 1997, 1998, 2006),
as initiators of DBMIs, their explorative intentions are driven by perceptions of performancereducing threats and risk experience (Osiyevskyy & Dewald, 2015).
The theoretic objective of this research was primarily to predict and identify the effect of
continuous reconfiguration capability on disruptive business model innovation with the
guidance of strategic orientation, as depicted in Figure 1. The relationship between continuous
reconfiguration capability and strategic orientation as well as DBMI was set out in the following
three hypotheses:
Figure 1 Conceptual Model
H1: Continuous reconfiguration capability is positively related to strategic orientation.
H2: Strategic orientation is positively related to disruptive business model innovation.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
24
editor@iaeme.com
Kurnadi Gularso, Tirta Nugraha Mursitama, Pantri Heriyati, Boto Simatupang
H3: Continuous reconfiguration capability is positively related to disruptive business model
innovation.
3. RESEARCH METHODS
For the purpose of this study, a quantitative research method was applied with particular
reference to an empirical survey with the Partial Least Squares-Structural Equation Modeling
(PLS-SEM) approach to analyze the data. The data were obtained by using questionnaires with
a Likert scale (1-4: Strongly disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree), from respondents of
Founder/C-Level Indonesia startups. The respondents were chosen randomly from the
population of DailySocial, an Indonesia digital media startup.
The study collected the data using a cross-sectional survey method with a questionnaire that
consists of two parts: fill in information and Likert scale statements. The questionnaires were
then distributed online through personal accounts, and a small amount was offline directly to
the Founders/C-Level of Indonesia startups. This data collection took around five months, from
January to May 2018.
The total amount of Indonesia startups was recorded as 772 startups. Further, an amount of
265 questionnaires were distributed to the respondents who were taken randomly from the
population. The returned questionnaires were 107 or equal to 40.4% response rate.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Descriptive analysis of the data from the “filling in” and “Likert scale” questionnaire together
with the findings from some interviews and focus group discussions with Founders/C-Levels,
and their related stakeholders would enrich the interpretative explanations.
The respondent startups' types are SaaS, Media, On-Demand, E-Commerce, Marketplace,
Fintech, Agtech, Edtech, Member Loyalty, and Others. The operating period of the majority of
startups is around three years and below with a total of 78 (72.9%), which means that only 29
(27.1%) startups are more than three years old. Sales performance of majority startups as many
as 56 (52.3%) are at levels above one billion rupiahs, 40 (37.4%) are at levels below one billion
rupiahs, and the remaining 11 (10.3%) are not willing to state their sales performance. With
sales growth of under 10% per year of 16 (15.0%); between 10% to 20% per year as much as
20 (18.7%); between 20% 50% per year as much as 24 (22.4%); and the majority or as many
as 47 (43.9%) have sales growth of above 50% per year. However, only 37 (34.6%) stated that
they had enjoyed profits, while the remaining 70 (65.4%) had not.
Five questions that are used as indicators related to continuous reconfiguration capabilities
are changes in organizational structure, marketing method or strategy, technological equipment
or manufacturing process; aspects of renewing business processes and
production/manufacturing processes; and the social-networking aspect with all values above
70% with a standard deviation between 0.62 to 0.72. The six indicators related to strategic
orientation are entrepreneurship orientation (innovativeness and risk-taking), market
orientation (competitive aggressiveness, customer orientation, and competitor orientation), and
technology orientation (technological turbulence). The four indicators related to disruptive
business model innovation are value creation (new capabilities); value proposition (new
customer relationships); new market disruptive innovation; and low-end market disruptive
innovation (efficient products/services). Score items are relatively high which are all above
80% with a standard deviation between 0.60 to 0.70.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
25
editor@iaeme.com
The Effect of Continuous Reconfiguration Capability on Disruptive Business Model Innovation
Study on Indonesia Digital Startups
Cronbach
Alpha
Composite
Reliability
AVE
Discriminant
Validity
DBMI
Indicator
Reliability
SO
Loadings
CRC
Indicators
Latent Variable
Table 1 Results Summary for Reflective Measurement Models
crc_1
crc_2
crc_3
crc_4
crc_5
so_1
so_2
so_3
so_4
so_5
so_6
dbmi_1
dbmi_2
dbmi_3
dbmi_4
0.754
0.769
0.794
0.812
0.747
0.623
0.513
0.692
0.827
0.813
0.756
0.718
0.784
0.763
0.725
0.569
0.591
0.630
0.659
0.558
0.388
0.263
0.479
0.684
0.661
0.572
0.516
0.615
0.582
0.526
0.836
0.883
0.601
Yes
0.798
0.858
0.508
Yes
0.740
0.835
0.560
Yes
Rather than applying the Cronbach's alpha, Hair et al. (2014) prescribe applying composite
reliability to quantify internal consistency, in which all outcome values are within and above a
satisfactory range of 0.70 to 0.90, (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). All AVE values are above the
0.50 threshold. It means the constructs illustrate the more significant part of the variance of its
indicators. Table 1 presents the reflective measurement models.
The significance of the path coefficients, the t-values, the level of R2 values, and the
predictive relevance (Q2) will evaluate the structural models. While, the goodness-of-fit (GoF)
measurement is not necessarily to be used (Hair et al., 2014). R2 values express that exogenous
latent variable CRC explains 14.6% of the variance in the endogenous latent variable SO.
Likewise, the latent variable SO explains 36.2% of the variance in the endogenous latent
variable DBMI. The R2 value of DBMI is above 0.25, hence the number of sample size in this
research (107) is adequate, (Cohen, 1992). All Q2 values are higher than 0, which implies that
the exogenous construct has predictive relevance for the two endogenous constructs SO and
DBMI.
The path coefficient values which are aligned with the t-values. T-values determine the
significance of the relationship between two variables with the minimum value of 1.96 is
considered as a significance relation. The threshold derived from a two-tailed test with a
significance level of 5%. Under this criterium, the results concluded that CRC has a significant
positive influence to achieve SO and subsequently SO has a significant positive influence in
attaining DBMI. However, the results also showed that CRC does not have a significant direct
effect on DBMI.
Following, examine the mediating effect of SO in this research model by directly analyzing
the relationship between CRC and DBMI by removing the SO variable. The analysis shows
that this relationship has a path coefficient of 0.357 with t-value of 3.933. These results indicate
that CRC has a significant positive relation with DBMI. For this reason, the mediating effect of
SO is calculated, with the VAF (Variance Accounted for) result is 57.5%. Because this result
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
26
editor@iaeme.com
Kurnadi Gularso, Tirta Nugraha Mursitama, Pantri Heriyati, Boto Simatupang
is in the range of 20% ≤ VAF ≤ 80%, it is concluded that SO gives a ‘partial mediation’ in the
relationship between CRC and DBMI.
These results indicate that CRC affects SO positively and significantly in achieving DBMI
while CRC is not significantly positive in influencing DBMI achievement directly. Likewise
with SO which shows its role as a mediator of the two variables CRC and DBMI partially.
The study shows that the variable continuous reconfiguration capabilities play a critical role
in transforming startups to attain disruptive business model innovation. It is different from
common reconfiguration capabilities, the nature of “continuous” reconfiguration is to attain
optimum performance of innovation implementation in responding to customers, competitors,
and technologies change (Rindova & Kotha, 2001; Teece, 2007).
Continuous reconfiguration capabilities will influence the startups’ strategic orientations
which consist of entrepreneurial orientation (innovation & risks), market orientation
(aggressiveness, customers, competition), and turbulence technology. Further, strategic
orientation as a mediator will influence the achievement of disruptive business model
innovation (Hakala, 2010; Johnson, Martin, & Saini, 2012; Frambach, Fiss, & Ingenbleek,
2016; (Mutterlein M. A. & Kunz, 2017).
Interviews and forum group discussions showed that startups focus on customer-centric
while profit-oriented is considered as a consequence if startups have succeeded in innovating
by providing solutions for low-end customers and/or customers who have not been well served
and even ignored by incumbents (Frambach, Fiss, & Ingenbleek, 2016; Mütterlein & Kunz,
2017). One of the startup founders argued: "We established startups instead of focusing on the
profits we were targeting, but we focused on products/services including how to deliver them
to targeted customers." These proved the role of strategic orientation as a guideline for
organizations in implementing disruptive business innovation model.
5. CONCLUSIONS
Indonesia startups should implement disruptive business model innovation to survive and get
significant growth in facing VUCA business environment. Hence, startups need to have
dynamic capabilities in the form of entrepreneurial activities. The role of continuous
reconfiguration capability as a capability of transformation through reconfiguring both internal
as well as external assets is essential during innovation implementation. Continuous
reconfiguration is applicable to respond to the ever-changing environment such as market
changes as well as technology turbulence.
The continuous reconfiguration capability also influences the need always to search and
create new opportunities. Consequently, the strategic orientations are needed to guide the
organization in seizing these opportunities. Entrepreneurial orientation, market orientation, and
technology orientation will mediate this reconfiguring capability to attain disruptive business
model innovation.
This study also gives insight that startups have some characteristics which distinguish them
with traditional business. Startups implement disruptive innovation continuously instead of
sustaining innovation done by incumbents, to serve and resolve customer needs and wants and
think how always to get significant growth to beat the market. Eventually, the continuous
reconfiguration capability is the necessary capability for startups.
This study has several limitations and recommendations. Because of the dynamic nature of
the business and its environment, quantitative methods may not be adequate to study the
behavior of disruptive innovations. The construct of disruptive business model innovation could
have been ideally measured by assessing its disruptive impact on the incumbent’s traditional
business model and market by objective measures including the affected financial performance
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
27
editor@iaeme.com
The Effect of Continuous Reconfiguration Capability on Disruptive Business Model Innovation
Study on Indonesia Digital Startups
as well as potential market loss. However, it is not easy to obtain financial data from
incumbents, including their market share data which was eroded by the disruptor.
The next research may need to test other variables that are also relevant and effective so
that it can improve the role of continuous reconfiguration capability to increase predictive value
in achieving disruptive business model innovation. Such as the uses of top management time
and line manager involvement are seen as essential aspects of avoiding problem areas.
Although, the results of this study are satisfactory as preliminary research to be followed up by
further studies on strategy and growth management of digital startups. Future researches should
consider aspects such as the age and scale of organization, the existence of investors/venture
capitals, and the maturity of Founders/C-Level that can be used as control variables.
REFERENCES
[1]
Attias D. (2017) The Autonomous Car, a Disruptive Business Model? In: Attias D. (eds)
The Automobile Revolution. Springer, Cham 99–113.
[2]
Balboni, B., Bortoluzzi, G., Tivan, M., Tracogna, A., & Venier, F. (2014). The Growth
Drivers of Start-up Firms and Business Modelling: A First Step toward a Desirable
Convergence. Management, 9(2), 131-154.
[3]
Banjongprasert, J. (2013). An Empirical Investigation of Dynamic Capabilities At the
Individual Level : the Context of New Service.
[4]
Barreto, I. (2010). Dynamic Capabilities: A Review of Past Research and An Agenda for
the Future. Journal of Management, 36(1), 256-280.
[5]
Birkinshaw J, Ansari S (2015) Chapter 5 Understanding Management Models: Going
Beyond “What” and “Why” to “How” Work Gets Done in Organizations. In: Foss NJ,
Saebi T (eds) Business model innovation: the organizational dimension. Oxford University
Press, Oxford, pp 85–103
[6]
Chang, C. C., & Kuo, C. G. (2013). Exploring Dynamic Capabilities of Executives for Core
Strategy. African Journal of Business Management, 7(40), 4188-4198.
[7]
Charitou, C. & Markides, C. (2003). Responses to disruptive strategic innovation. Sloan
Management Review. 44 (2), pp. 55-63.
[8]
Chen, M. J., Lin, H. C., & Michel, J. G. (2010). Navigating in A Hypercompetitive
Environment: The Roles of Action Aggressiveness and TMT Integration. Strategic
Management Journal, 31(13), 1410-1430.
[9]
Chu R. (2017) Business Model Revolution: Four Cases of the Fastest-Growing, Disruptive
Companies of the Twenty-First Century. In: Brem A., Viardot E. (eds) Revolution of
Innovation Management. Palgrave Macmillan, London.
[10]
Chung-Herrera, B. G., Enz, C. A., & Lankau, M. J. (2003). A Competencies Model:
Grooming Future Hospitality Leaders. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration
Quarterly, 44(3), 17-25.
[11]
Cohen, J. (1992). Quantitative Methods in Psychology: A Power Primer, Psychological
Bulletin 112(1), 155–159.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
28
editor@iaeme.com
Kurnadi Gularso, Tirta Nugraha Mursitama, Pantri Heriyati, Boto Simatupang
[12]
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic Capabilities: What are They? Strategic
Management Journal, 21(10‐11), 1105-1121.
[13]
Frambach, R. T., Fiss, P. C., & Ingenbleek, P. T. (2016). How Important is Customer
Orientation for Firm Performance? A Fuzzy Set Analysis of Orientations, Strategies, and
Environments. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1428-1436.
[14]
Hakala, H. (2010). Configuring Out Strategic Orientation, (232).
[15]
Hamid Hawass, H. (2010). Exploring the Determinants of the Reconfiguration Capability:
A Dynamic Capability Perspective. European Journal of Innovation Management, 13(4),
409-438.
[16]
Hsu, T. T., Tsai, K. H., Hsieh, M. H., & Wang, W. Y. (2014). Strategic Orientation and
New Product Performance: The Roles of Technological Capability. Canadian Journal of
Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration, 31(1), 44-58.
[17]
Johnson, J. L., Martin, K. D., & Saini, A. (2012). The Role of A Firm's Strategic Orientation
Dimensions in Determining Market orientation. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(4),
715-724.
[18]
Markides, Constantinos (1997). Strategic Innovation. Sloan Management Review 38(3):9–
23.
[19]
Markides, Constantinos (1998). Strategic Innovation in Established Companies. Sloan
Management Review 39(3):31–42.
[20]
Markides, C. (2006). Disruptive innovation: In need of better theory. The Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 19–25.
[21]
McGrath, R. G. (2013). The End of Competitive Advantage: How to Keep Your Strategy
Moving as Fast as Your Business. Harvard Business Review Press.
[22]
Mütterlein M.A., J., & Kunz, R. (2017). Influence of Entrepreneurial and Alliance
Orientation on Business Model Innovation. EMMA Conference: Value Creation in Media
Markets: Business Models, Clusters and Eco Systems 49(0), 0–13.
[23]
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill,
Inc.
[24]
O’Connell, K., Delaney, K., & Moriarty, R. (2015). Digital Business Transformation:
Disrupt To Win, (June), 1–12.
[25]
Osiyevskyy, O., & Dewald, J. (2015). Explorative versus exploitative business model
change: the cognitive antecedents of firm‐level responses to disruptive innovation. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 9(1), 58-78.
[26]
PwC. (April 2013). The Startup Economy: How to support tech startups and accelerate
Australian innovation. Australia: Google.
[27]
Rindova, V. P., & Kotha, S. (2001). Continuous Morphing: Competing through Dynamic
Capabilities, Form, and Function. The Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1263–1280.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
29
editor@iaeme.com
The Effect of Continuous Reconfiguration Capability on Disruptive Business Model Innovation
Study on Indonesia Digital Startups
[28]
Schindehutte, M., Morris, M. H., & Kocak, A. (2008). Understanding Market‐Driving
Behavior: The Role of Entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management, 46(1), 426.
[29]
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of
(sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319-1350.
[30]
Teece, D. J. (2014). The Foundations of Enterprise Performance: Dynamic and Ordinary
Capabilities in An (Economic) Theory of Firms. Academy of Management
Perspectives, 28(4), 328-352.
[31]
Teece, D. J., & Linden, G. (2017). Business Models, Value Capture, and the Digital
Enterprise. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41469-017-0018-x
[32]
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic
Management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533.
[33]
Voss, G. B., & Giraud, Z. (2011). Strategic Orientation and Firm Performance in an Artistic
Performance Environment. Journal of Marketing, 64(1), 67–83.
[34]
Wang, C. L., & Ahmed, P. K. (2007). Dynamic Capabilities: A Review and Research
Agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(1), 31–51.
[35]
Zhou, K. Z., Yim, C. K. (Bennett), & Tse, D. K. (2005). The Effects of Strategic
Orientations on Technology- and Market-Based Breakthrough Innovations. Journal of
Marketing, 69(2), 42–60.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
30
editor@iaeme.com