supply chain collaboration of thai firms, supply chain

Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA

SUPPLY CHAIN COLLABORATION OF THAI FIRMS

BY

SUTHIDA CHANSANGUAN

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ENGINEERING

(LOGISTICS AND SUPPLY CHAIN SYSTEMS ENGINEERING)

SIRINDHORN INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY

ACADEMIC YEAR 2016


ii

Abstract

SUPPLY CHAIN COLLABORATION OF THAI FIRMS

by

SUTHIDA CHANSANGUAN

Bachelor of Science, Sirindhorn International Institure of Technology, Thammasat

University, 2014

Master of Engineering, Sirindhorn International Institute of Technology, Thammasat

University, 2017

In a competitive international business environment, firms utilize supply chain

collaboration to improve firm performance. The objective of this paper is to investigate

the nature of collaborations by Thai firms and the impacts on firm performances. The

main focus is on exploring the collaboration-related factors such as firm’s intention,

firm’s technological capability, knowledge management, collaboration approaches, and

innovation which lead to improved firm performance. Survey data from 139

manufacturing firms in Thailand were analyzed using multiple regression analyses. The

results showed that firm’s intention, technological capability, knowledge management

and collaboration have significant effects on improved productivity.

Keywords: Supply chain collaboration, innovation, performance


iii

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my advisor Asst. Prof. Dr. Nattharika Rittipant for her

invaluable help and advice throughout the years. This thesis would not be possible

without her support.

I would like to thank my committee members, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Chawalit

Jeenanunta, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Somrote Komolavanij, and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Thanwadee

Chinda for their insightful comments and suggestions to my thesis.

I am grateful for Assoc. Prof. Dr. Chawalit Jeenanunta, Asst. Prof. Dr.

Nattharika Rittipant, Asst Prof. Dr. Pornpimol Chongpaisal, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ryoju

Hamada, Prof. Dr. Masatsugu Tsuji and Dr. Yasushi Ueki for providing guidelines on

the questionnaires and data from Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East

Asia (ERIA).

Finally, I would like to thank my family, friends, and Sirindhorn

International Institute of Technology for their supports and encouragement. I truly

appreciate it.

.


iv

Table of Contents

Chapter Title Page

Signature Page i

Acknowledgements ii

Abstract iii

Table of Contents iv

List of Tables vi

List of Figures vii

1 Introduction 1

2 Literature Review 2

2.1 Firm’s Intention 2

2.1.1 Exploration 2

2.1.2 Exploitation 3

2.2 Technological Capability 3

2.3 Types of Collaboration 5

2.3.1 Formal Collaboration 6

2.3.2 Informal Collaboration 6

2.4 Knowledge Management 6

2.5 Innovation 7

2.6 Supply Chain Performance and Performance Measurement 8

2.6.1 Lead Time 9

2.6.2 Cost 9

2.6.3 Productivity 9


v

3 Research Hypotheses 11

3.1 Research Hypotheses 11

3.2 Conceptual Model 13

4 Methodology 14

4.1 Data Collection 14

4.2 Measurement Scale 14

4.3 Data Screening 17

4.3.1 Outlier 17

4.3.2 Normality test 17

4.4 Multiple Regression Analysis 20

4.4.1 Dummy Coding with Three levels 20

5 Result and Discussion 21

5.1 Respondent Profile 21

6 Conclusion and Recommendations 27

References 28

Appendices 34

Questionnaire (English Version) 35

Questionnaire (Thai Version) 45


vi

List of Tables

Tables Page

2.1 Basis for Technological Capability Indicator 4

2.2 Number of Patent Applications per Year 5

4.1 Measure of Firm’s Intention 15

4.2 Measure of Technological Capability 15

4.3 Measure of Knowledge Management 16

4.4 Measure of Collaboration 16

4.5 Measure of Innovation 16

4.6 Measure of Performance 17

4.7 Data Screening 18

5.1 Respondent Profile 21

5.2 Descriptive Statistics and Correlation 25

5.3 Pearson Correlation Coefficient of Cx and Px Variables 26


vii

List of Figure

Figure Page

3.1 Conceptual Model 13

5.1 Firm Location 22

5.2 Type of Industry 22


1

Chapter 1

Introduction

Nowadays, many companies are striving to survive in the market by improving their

product and process quality. The organizations are now trying to collaborate internally

and externally to gain benefits and achieve the organizational goals. Supply chain

collaboration can help firms achieve their goals more effectively (Zeng et al., 2010). In

Thailand, the studies on collaboration between firms are quite limited. The majority of

researches on supply chain collaboration in Thai industries demonstrated the results in

terms of problems in supply chain management (e.g., Phong-arjarn and Jeenanunta,

2013). Many researchers consider supply chain collaboration a relationship as one in

which two or more independent companies originate the new knowledge, and share

benefits between each other (Cao and Zhang, 2011; Samaddar and Kadiyala, 2006;

Tsimiklis and Makatsoris, 2015). The benefits of supply chain collaboration include the

process of changing, generating the relationship between companies and improving the

firm performance in terms of the economic, environmental, and social dimensions

(Chen et al., 2017). In addition, innovation has become one of the most important

strategies (Tödtling and Kaufmann, 2002). Collaborations enable firms to create

innovations such as product innovation, organizational innovation and market

innovation (Avermaete, 2003). However, the benefit of supply chain collaboration may

not be realized by all partners involved in the supply chain collaboration (Myers and

Cheung, 2008).

The purpose of this study is to examine the nature of collaborations by Thai firms

and the impacts on firm’s performances. The main focus is on exploring the

collaboration-related factors such as firm’s intention, firm’s technological capability,

formal and informal collaboration, and innovation which can lead to improved firm

performance.

The study begins by conducting a literature review of firm’s intention, technological

capability, collaboration, knowledge management, innovation and performance. Based

on the literature review, we develop a conceptual model that investigates how each

factor affects firm performance. The structure of this study is as followed. Section 2

presents the literature review of all factors. Section 3 discusses the research hypotheses

and describes the conceptual model. Section 4 presents the research methodology

including data collection, measurement scale and method of analysis. Section 5

provides results based on research hypotheses. Lastly, Section 6 provides discussion

and conclusion of the study.


2

Chapter 2

Literature Review

In the past, research in operations management focused on single-firm to multi-

firm analysis (Meca and Timmer, 2008). Supply Chain (SC) operators have

started considering the changing interests of consumers and their shifting loyalty

while managing supply chain inventory, capacity and production, and delivery

management (Ramanathan, 2013). This reflected in collaborative relationships

between SC partners to avoid stock-outs and excess inventory (Cachon and

Fisher, 2000) as the firms need to find a way to survive in competitive market.

In order to survive, collaboration between firms was sought after for the purpose

of serving customers through integrated solutions for lowering cost and

increasing revenue (Simatupang and Sridharan, 2004). Supply chain

collaboration focuses on a partnership process where two or more independent

firms work closely to plan and perform supply chain operations toward common

goals and mutual benefits (Cao and Zhang, 2011). The benefits of collaboration

include increased revenue, reduced cost and the flexibility of the firms facing

the demand uncertainties of the customers (Payne and Peters, 2004).

2.1 Firm’s Intention

The intention of the firm refers to exploration and exploitation strategies prior to the

process of innovation (Jacoby, 2005). Kliman et al., (1989) categorized firm’s intention

into two major categories: the exploration of new possibilities and the exploitation of

old certainties. Both types of firm’s intention can have significant impact firm

development and performance (Jensen and Clausen, 2017).

2.1.1 Exploration

March (1991) defined the meaning of exploration which is an experimentation with

new alternatives. The exploration is to search beyond a current product of the firm,

discovering the new knowledge and products to launch though market. Exploration also

includes activities associate with terms such as research (for new knowledge), risk

taking (e.g., creation of products with unknown demand), experimentation (e.g., use of

unfamiliar technologies), flexibility, discovery, and innovation. Because these activities

do not reliably and quickly produce revenue, exploration has uncertain and distant

benefit (Greve, 2007). However, exploration stage of the new product development

process that most previous studies have examined linked firms to good performance

(Shan et al., 1994; Deeds and Hill, 1996; Baum et al., 2000; Rothaermel and Deeds,

2004).


3

2.1.2 Exploitation

March (1991) explained the essence of exploitation as the refinement and extension

of existing competences, technologies, and paradigms. Exploitation followed the

existing organizational routines and expanded the existing knowledge based on the

customer requirement (Zhang et al., 2015). Exploitation included activities associate

with terms such as refinement of existing knowledge, choice of technologies and

products, production, efficiency, selection implementation and execution. Exploitation

has more definite and ease of obtaining benefits than exploration (Greve, 2007).

Rothaermel and Deeds (2004) suggested that exploitation alliances are one possible

organizing mode to commercialize new products in the market.

2.2 Technological Capability Firms can find the opportunities based on their technological capability. Previous

studies focus on firm technological capability (Lall, 1992; Bell and Pavitt, 1995;

Archibugi and Pianta, 1996; Panda and Ramanathan, 1996; Kim, 1999; Reichert and

Zawislak, 2014). Several researchers focus on the relationship between technological

capability and firm performance (Hall and Bagchi-Sem, 2002; Garcia-Muiña and

Navas-López, 2007; Jin and Von Zedtwitz, 2008; Figueiredo, 2009; Reichert and

Zawislak, 2014). Capability is a subset of resources that enable a firm to take full

advantage of other resources such as international market expansion because

capabilities can generate value-creating competitive strategies over their competitors

(Haapanen et al., 2016). Firm’s capability or organizational capability represents

manager’s proficiency in understanding principles and applying processes consistent

with principles for managing people for competitive advantage (Ulrich and Lake,

1991). The technological capability is mostly a process generated by firms (Lall, 1992).

Firm needs to compete with competitors by developing more effective technological

capability (Zawislak, et al., 2012; Ruffoni, et al., 2012; Reichert and Zawislak, 2004).

Pavitt (1998) suggested that firms develop the technological capability by doing things

that they already know. The technological capability is considered as a generation of

new knowledge and learning. According to Ulrich and Lake (1991), organizational

capabilities consist of three main parts: economic or financial capability, strategic or

strategic marketing capability and technological capability. The financial capability can

be broadly defined as having the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to make informed

judgments and effective decisions regarding the use and management of money.

Ejarami (2016) proposed that strategic marketing capabilities contribute to the financial

performance of the firm. The technological capability has an important impact on firm

performance in term of technical function or activity of the firm to develop new

products and processes, and create firm operational effectively (Teece, 1997).

Therefore, technological capability is one of the most important assets because it can

further generate new technologies (Hsieh and Tsai, 2007). Firms with good developed

technological capabilities tend to have high performance (Tzokas et al., 2015) because

mastering state of the art technologies allows them to pioneer in process innovations

leading to competitive advantage through efficiency gains (Teece, 1997). They are also

more innovative (Afuah, 2002) and can achieve higher differentiation by innovating

products in response to the changing market environment (Teece, 1994; Verona, 1999).

In this study, we focus on technological capability in form of patent which is one of


4

basic technological indicator. Base on Reichert and Zawislak (2004), summary of the

basic technological capability indicators are as followed.

Table 2.1 Basic Technological Capability Indicators

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) defined patent as “an

exclusive right granted for an invention, which is a product or a process that provides,

in general, a new way of doing something, or offers a new technical solution to a

problem. To get a patent, technical information about the invention must be disclosed

to the public in a patent application.” Moreover WIPO classified Thai patent into three

types:

(1) Inventions patent

(2) Industrial designs patent (the features pertaining to the shape, configuration,

pattern or ornamental in term of industrial process)

(3) Petty Patent

In addition, Reichert and Zawislak (2014) suggested that more registered

patents will lead to a better performance for the firms. Table 1 showed the number of

patent applications per year in Thailand.


5

Table 2.2 Number of Patent Applications per Year

2.3 Types of Collaboration

Collaboration is an important concept for businesses, but it has been defined in

different contexts. Cao and Zhang (2011) referred to supply chain collaboration as a

partnership process which more than two companies working together to achieve the

common goals and gain the benefits. Similarly, Fawcett (2011) defined that

collaboration is ability to work across the organizational border to manage and create

the process to reach the customer satisfaction. Simatupang (2004) defined collaboration

as a cooperative strategy with partners, which objective to meet the customer needs by

reducing the cost and increasing revenue. Moreover, supply chain collaboration can be

considered in terms of information sharing, collaborative forecasting and a new product

development. In addition, there are some advantages of collaboration among partners

(Rai et al., 2006; Subramanuam and Youndt, 2005). Qu and Yang (2015) gave an

example of successful company who provided the collaboration. One of the best

examples is Wal-Mart, which decided to reduce the inventory level from 30 days to 5

days by developing the collaborative commerce connecting the large suppliers to

inventory management system. As a result, Wal-Mart has become the leader in retail

industry and gain more competitive advantages over the competitors.

Based on the previous review of collaboration typologies, there are many ways to

classify collaboration. Whipper and Russell (2007) described the three types of


6

collaboration as collaborative transaction management (focusing on exchanging the

information of transaction), collaborative event management (considering the decision-

making at the tactical/managerial level rather than the operational level) and

collaborative process management (focusing on knowledge sharing as well as joint

decision-making). Moreover, the collaboration can be classified as formal and informal

collaboration. Hakansson and Johnson (1988) gave the description of fomal and

infomal of collaboration for supply chain as followed:

2.3.1Formal Collaboration

Formal collaboration can be based on formal, written contracts between suppliers

and purchasers or formed by entities sharing common interests (Ratajczak-Mrozek,

2012). The companies that described innovation oriented external relationships

reported making extensive use of formal contracts to plan and manage these

relationships (Bozovic and Hadfield, 2015). Hamel et al., (1989) proved that the formal

collaboration with agreement between firms extend by increasing the flow of

information between partner, which firm have ability to learn. The formal collaboration

examples include licensing and registration (Mlinga and Wells, 2002).

2.3.2 Informal Collaboration

Informal contacts may be considered as simple personal contacts between companies

(Ratajczak-Mrozek, 2012). The informal collaboration can be considered as an informal

agreement between partners without legal bindings. Thai and Turkina (2014) suggested

that informal collaboration generate distrust among the partners. Even though informal

collaboration has some pitfalls, it can be beneficial to the partners (Song et al., 2015).

2.4 Knowledge management

Knowledge management (KM) is one of the key success factors for today’s business

leaders (Davenport and Völpel, 2001). Knowledge management is a function of

management which creates or locates knowledge, manages the flow of knowledge and

ensures that knowledge is used effectively and efficiently for the long-term benefit of

the organization (Darroch and McNaughton, 2002). Parlby and Taylor (2000) suggested

that knowledge management supports innovation, which is a generation of new idea

and exploitation of the organization’s knowledge. Knowledge management also

allowed the easy access to know-how. Knowledge management further allows

collaboration, knowledge sharing, continual learning and improvement. Thus,

knowledge management includes important organizational activities. It can enhance

firm’s productivity and other key performance measures (Martinsons et al., 2017).

Knowledge management combines various concepts from numerous disciplines,

including organizational behavior, human resources management, artificial

intelligence, and information technology (Liebowitz, 2001). Knowledge management

processes can help an organization acquire, store and use knowledge for tasks such as

problem-solving, dynamic learning, strategic planning and decision-making (Sveiby,

1997). For firms to improve their competitive advantage, they should have knowledge

management processes that enable them to create and gain knowledge and to apply,

share and preserve knowledge. Pillania (2008) suggested that knowledge management

activities are important to firm’s success. In addition, Parly and Taylor (2000) also


7

emphasized that knowledge management should be utilized in order for the firm to

develop innovation. Knowledge management can also help improve both

organizational and management processes (Mugellesi, 2010).

2.5 Innovation

Innovation is one of the most important competitive advantages for both small and

large firms (Todtling and Kaufman, 2002). Literature on innovation noted that in the

last two decades there has been a systematic and fundamental change in the way firms

develop innovative activities (Narula, 2004). In particular, there has been a large growth

for using external networks by firms of all sizes (Hagedoorn, 1996). There are many

different definitions and classifications of innovation types. Some literature suggested

that product innovation can be identified with extraction innovation and process

innovation, resource innovation, strategic innovation or system innovation. Australian

Institution for Commercialization (2015) categorized the innovation into two different

types which are incremental innovation and radical innovation. The incremental

innovation focuses on gradual improvement of processes, products or services. The

radical innovation involves creating a completely new process or product in response

to a market need or opportunity. In addition, OECD (2005) gave the guideline on the

types of innovation but did not describe all the nature of all innovation. The common

types of innovation include product, process, marketing, and organizational innovation.

The definition of each innovation types based on OECD (2015) is as follow:

(1) Product innovation is a good or service which has been newly established or

significantly improved with respect to its characteristics or intended uses. A

significant improvement includes technical specifications, components and

materials, software, user friendliness, ease of use, or other functional

characteristics such as speed and performance.

(2) Process innovation is a production process or delivery method that is new

or significantly improved. The significant improvements include changes in

techniques, equipment, or software (e.g., new production line, radio-frequency

identification (RFID) or global positioning system (GPS), new reservation

systems or techniques for project management, information, and

communication technology), which help improve efficiency or quality of the

process.

(3) Marketing innovation is defined as a marketing method that is new or

significantly improved. It relates to changes in the product design, packaging,

placement, promotion or pricing, which are all aimed at satisfying customers'

needs or opening up new markets.

(4) Organizational innovation is an organizational method that is new for

entrepreneurial practices, workplace organization, or external relations. In

contrast to a process innovation, an organizational innovation relates primarily

to people and aims at reducing administrative or transaction costs, improving

workplace satisfaction, and gaining access to new assets such as knowledge to

improve entrepreneurial performance.


8

In addition, Murphy and Gouldson (2000) and Bernauer et al. (2006) suggested

that the organizational innovations will support the technical innovations, which

included product innovations and process innovations. However, it is common to

describe different types of innovation in term of technologies as product innovation and

marketing innovation can be closely related to technologies. Freier (2003) suggested

that it is difficult to specify and classify a form of innovation because sometime product

innovation identified by a firm may be referred to as process innovation in another firm.

However, the common classifications of innovation types are defined by the Australian

Institution for commercialization (2015) and OECD (2015). Innovation can be

successfully applied to many fields. It can improve the performance of the firm by

developing a new product launch in the market or develop a new process to improve

the effectiveness and efficiency in the firm.

In this study, we focus on two types of innovation which are product innovation

and process innovation. This study proposes that a product innovation and process

innovation have a relationship to improve the performance of the firm.

2.6 Supply Chain Performance and Performance Measurement

Performance refers to output results and their outcomes obtained from processes,

products, and service (Hatry, 2006). Measurement refers to numerical information that

quantifies input, output, and performance dimensions of processes, products, services,

and the overall organization outcomes (Blazey, 2008). Performance measurement is a

key to improve the management performance. The measurement needs to provide an

accurate picture of supply chain performance as a whole and also indicates

improvements at both the individual firm and the overall supply chain levels (Lapide,

2000). Oak Ridge Associated Universities (2005) summarized the general measurement

of performance by grouping it into five categories as followed:

(1) Effectiveness: The degree to which the process output (work product)

conforms to requirements

(2) Efficiency: The degree to which the process produces the required output at

minimum resource cost

(3) Quality: The degree to which a product or service meets customer

requirements and expectations

(4) Timeliness: Measurement whether a unit of work was done correctly and on

time. Criteria must be established to define what constitutes timeliness for a given unit

of work. The criterion is usually based on customer requirements.

(5) Productivity: The value added by the process divided by the value of the

labor and capital consumed

Performance of firm may depend on how effectively firms allocate scarce resources

through its strategic focus and how firms secure better negotiation terms through

improvement of their supply chain position (Cao and Zhang, 2011). Three major

categories that are common performance measures are related to decreased lead time,

decreased cost and increased productivity.


9

2.6.1 Lead Time

Lead time is a lap time between when the customer orders and receives the product

or service. Lead time is important in the production process. It can be reduced by

various functional and organizational improvements (Gunasekaran, 2004). Short lead

time is valuable to buyers because it speeds up the gratification from consumption. Lead

time is important because it is a proportional to work-in-process inventory. It causes

the firm to hold finished goods. In addition, it may be favorably related with operation’s

costs that are time related, and short lead time reduces costs (Lederer and Li, 1997).

2.6.2 Cost

Cost is one of traditional performance measurement for supply chain. Cost is an

amount that has to be paid or given up in order to get something. In business, cost is

usually a monetary valuation of effort, material, resources, time and utilities consumed,

risks incurred, and opportunity forgone in production and delivery of a good or service.

All expenses are costs, but not all costs such as those incurred in acquisition of an

income-generating asset are expenses. In order to improve the firm performance, the

reduction of costs remains a key issue for manufacturers of all sizes. The focus is on

back-office processes, where cost-reduction potential exists. Operational and non-

operational areas should be equally in focus. Cost reductions for manufacturing

companies will increasingly become the core strategy to survive in the real market

competition (Cao and Zhang, 2011). To achieve the competitive advantage reducing

cost is the first consideration. Low cost is no longer the most important factor for

competing in most markets (Ghalayini and Noble, 1996). Skinner (1986) argues

that, in order to be competitive, firm should concentrate on quality, reliable

delivery, short lead times, customer service, rapid product introduction, flexible

capacity and efficient capital deployment. Skinner adds that these are not cost

reductions, but are essential to success in the market. Reducing costs at the expense

of any of these areas will be more harmful than helpful.

2.6.3 Productivity

Productivity can be classified into three main categories (1) partial productivity, (2)

aggregate productivity, and (3) productivity paradox (Ghalayini and Noble, 1996).

Excessive emphasis on input at the expense of other aspects will consider as a risk

in partial productivity (Edosomwan, 1985). The aggregated productivity takes into

account for all or most of the system. The aggregate productivity measures attempt

to account for all or most of the system inputs. Since inputs are not homogeneous

and some are intangible, representing them is a difficult task. In addition, the

consideration of all inputs requires significant amount of data that are time

consuming and costly to obtain. Armitage and Atkinson (1990) found that

managers refer to aggregate measures as “misdirected, irrelevant, or too complex

to be understood and effective in motivating performance”. Skinner (1986) argued

that concentrating on improving productivity has its disadvantages. Productivity is

mostly concerned with direct labor which is no longer a significant portion of the


10

cost. Thus, decreasing the cost of direct labor and/or increasing direct labor

efficiency do not contribute significantly to the overall performance of the

company. Moreover, focusing excessively on the efficiency of factory workers and

departments detracts attention from improving the production system itself.

Productivity Committee of the European Productivity Agency at Rome Conference

in 1959 recognized that productivity is more than what its technical definition suggests.

It is the driving force or dynamism behind developing and upgrading the quality of

industrial activities. The concept of productivity will change depending on what is

expected of industrial activities. The productivity of a certain set of resources (input)

is, therefore, the amount of goods or services (output) which is produced by them. Land

and buildings, materials, machines, manpower (labor), and technology are the resources

at the disposal of a manufacturing company. Therefore, higher (improved) productivity

means that more output is produced with the same expenditure of resource (Kumar et

al., 2016).


11

Chapter 3

Research Hypotheses

3.1 Research Hypotheses

This research studies the relationship between firm’s intention, technological

capability, knowledge management, innovation and collaboration in supply chain

impacts on the supply chain performance. Based on the literature review, we develop

the following hypotheses:

March (1991) defined firm’s intention into two patterns. Exploration included things

captured by terms such as search, variation, risk taking, experimentation, play,

flexibility, discovery, innovation. Rothaermel and Deeds (2004) suggested that learning

between firm and partners is importance in both exploration and exploitation

relationship. Rothaermel and Deeds (2004) also provided a comparison between

product and process innovation’s relationship of the exploration and exploitation.

Exploration in product refers to a firm have an ability to create a new product that is

new to the company's product portfolio. Exploration in process refers to a firm's ability

to create and subsequently adopt an entirely new production process which is new or

radically changed compared to the company's existent production process. Exploitation

in process refers to a firm's ability to introduce new investment (or intermediate) goods

(Edquist et al., 2001) into an existing production process.

Firm’s capability or organizational capability represents manager’s proficiency in

understanding principles and applying processes consistent with principles for

managing people for competitive advantage (Haapanen et al., 2016). Firm capability

includes factors that contribute to the firm’s awareness of strategic opportunities and

its ability in implementing strategies (Barney and Arikan, 2001). It can apply overall

capabilities to launch a greater level of competition, achieves a better position in the

market. Firm’s capability must have effective relationship across supply chain partners

to achieve coordination.

Knowledge is considered a valuable resource for organizations which is allowing

companies to improve their performance (Cao and Zhang, 2011). Knowledge

management enables the company to improve their performance in terms of

productivity, flexibility and ability to be competitive among competitors (Seleim and

Khalil, 2007). There is a clear theoretical and empirical foundation for the belief that

knowledge management is influential to firm performance (Seleim and Khalil, 2007).

H1: Firm’s intension has positive impacts on firm performance in term of increased

productivity, reduced lead time and reduced cost.

H2: Technological capability has positive impacts on firm performance in term of

productivity, lead time and cost.


12

Collaboration has become an important concept for improving performance. Fındık

and Beyhan, (2015) suggested that firms that engaged in external collaboration and

internal collaboration also brings improvements to the performance of the firm.

Firm performance has many dimensions. It can be classified as manufacturing

and marketing (Sohn et al., 2007) or as growth and profit (Atalay et al., 2013). This

study defined the firm performance of firms in terms of lead time, cost, and

productivity. Innovation is a one of most important strategies of competition which can

impact firm performance (Tödtling and Kaufmann, 2002).

H5: Innovation has positive impacts on firm performance in terms of reduced lead time,

reduced cost and increased productivity.

H3: Knowledge management has positive impacts on firm performance.

H4: Collaboration has positive impacts on firm performance.


13

3.2 Conceptual Model

Figure 3.1 Conceptual Model


14

Chapter 4

Methodology

This research aims to gather information about supply chain collaboration in Thai

firms. This consists of some factors which affect the performance of the firms. This

paper uses a questionnaire as a main tool in order to collect the data. There are 4 parts.

Part 1 includes the information of organization such as organization name, address,

telephone number, e-mail address. Part 2 asks about the achievements for upgrading

and innovation. Part 3 asks about innovative activities to realize development of new

business, product, market or introduction business/product/market, or introduction of

production process/managerial organization. Part 4 explores current business linkages

with main corporate customers and suppliers.

4.1 Data Collection

The questionnaire surveys were used to collect the data from firms in Thailand. The

questionnaire surveys were distributed to 1000 manufacturing firms in Thailand via

phone, postal mails, and e-mails. The 139 usable responses were used for further

statistical analysis. After the data were collected, multiple regression was used to

analyze the results.

4.2 Measurement Scale

In this study, we classify the independent variables into five main groups. They

are firm’s intention, technological capability, knowledge management, collaboration,

and innovation. The firm performance is the dependent variable of this study. Tables 1

– 8 show measurement scale for each construct. For firm’s intention, we used 3 point-

Likert scale, where 0 = not tried yet, 1 = achieved, and 2 = tried. Second, technological

capability used dichotomous question, where 0 = No, and 1 = Yes. Then, 5 point- Likert

scale was used for knowledge management measurement, where 0 = Not Practicing, 1

= Not important, 2 = Not very important, 3 = Somewhat important, and 4 = Very

important. Collaboration and innovation used dichotomous questions, where 0 = No,

and 1 = Yes. Table 8 showed the 4 point- Likert scale questions used to measure firm

performance (dependent variable), where 0 = No, 1 = Little, 2 = Somewhat, and 3 =

Much.

In summary, the objective of this paper is to examine the relationship between

firm’s intention (H1), technological capability (H2), knowledge management (H3),

collaboration (H4), innovation (H5) and firm performance using the multiple regression

as the tool for statistical analysis.


15

Table 4.1 Measure of Firm’s Intention

Question Scale Abbreviation

Have you tried to introduced a new product,

redesigning packing or significantly changing

appearance design of your existing products

3-point Likert

Scale

C1

Have you tried to introduced a new product,

significantly improving your existing product

with respect to its capabilities, user friendliness,

components, subsystems, etc.

C2

Have you tried to development of a totally new

product based on the “existing” technologies

for your establishment

C3

Have you tried to development of a totally new

product based on “new” technologies for your

establishment

C4

Table 4.2 Measure of Technological Capability


Does your establishment hold an intellectual

property right (patent, utility, model, trade

mark)?

Yes - No

C5


16

Table 4.3 Measure of Knowledge Management


How do you share experiences (success or

failure) of R&D or any other innovative

activities?

5-point Likert

Scale

1. Group discussion C6

2. Meeting with director C7

3. On the job training C8

4. QC circles on R&D or any other innovation

activities

C9

5. Manual C10

6. Presentation materials prepared by your

establishment

C11

7. Documents concerning proposals or claims

from your customers or suppliers

C12

8. Drawing, blueprint C13

9. CAD/CA data C14

10. Electronic document, development of

database and knowledge sharing system

C15

11. Information exchange among employees

during lunch time or break time

C16

12. Information exchange among employees

after working hours outside your firm

C17

Table 4.4 Measure of Collaboration


Does you have research meeting with main

customer/supplier?

Yes - No C18

Table 4.5 Measure of Innovation


Does you have ideas of new business, product,

service, process, market, managerial

organization?

Yes - No C19


17

Table 4.6 Measure of Performance

Question Scale

Have you establishment to reduced defects

during a manufacturing process

4 – point Likert

Scale

Have you establishment to reduced labor input

(man-hour)

Have you establishment to reduced lead time to

introduce a new product

Have you establishment to reduced plant

maintenance costs

4.3 Data Screening

Data screening is a process to screen data in order to ensure that the data is

usable, reliable and valid before conducting further statistical analysis. In this study,

the outlier test and normality test are used to screen the data.

4.3.1 Outlier

Outlier is an observation that lies an abnormal distance from other values in a

random sample from a population. In a sense, this definition leaves it up to the analyst

(or a consensus process) to decide what will be considered abnormal. Before

abnormal observations can be singled out, it is necessary to characterize normal

observations (Zey, 2002). Pallant (2005) suggested the acceptance value of ∆%

trimmed mean must be less than 0.2. In this case the 5% trimmed mean was used, the

difference between mean and the trimmed mean was less than 0.2.

4.3.2 Normality test

4.3.2.1 Skewness is a measure of symmetry, or more precisely, the lack of

symmetry. A distribution, or data set, is symmetric if it has the normal distribution

shape (Zey, 2002). Curran et al., (2002) suggested the acceptable rang of skewness is

± 2.

4.3.2.2 Kurtosis is a measure of whether the data are heavy-tailed or light-

tailed relative to a normal distribution. That is, data sets with high kurtosis tend to

have heavy tails, or outliers. Data sets with low kurtosis tend to have light tails, or

lack of outliers. Curran et al., (2002) suggested the acceptable rang of Kurtosis is ± 7.

Table 9 showed the data screening result.


18

Table 4.7 Data Screening

Item Mean S.D. 5% trimmed mean ∆5% trimmed mean Skewness Kurtosis

Intention 1 1.73 0.78 1.72 0.01 0.39 -1.02

Intention 2 1.78 0.81 1.77 0.01 0.39 -1.02

Intention 3 1.59 0.86 1.73 0.14 0.30 -1.18

Intention 4 1.52 0.84 1.67 0.15 0.37 -0.90

Technological Capability 1.33 0.55 1.45 0.12 -0.24 -0.96

Knowledge management 1 3.61 1.44 3.95 0.34 -1.10 -0.21

Knowledge management 2 4.16 1.35 4.28 0.12 -1.57 1.10

Knowledge management 3 3.89 1.38 3.98 0.09 -1.15 0.02










19

Table 4.7 Data Screening (cont.)

Item Mean S.D. 5% trimmed mean ∆5% trimmed mean Skewness Kurtosis


Collaboration 2.05 1.36 2.00 0.00 0.64 -1.50

Innovation 1.77 0.37 1.87 0.01 -1.81 1.29

Performance 1 2.57 1.06 2.57 0.05 -0.21 -1.17

Performance 2 2.30 1.07 2.28 0.02 0.09 -1.31

Performance 3 2.24 1.00 2.21 0.01 0.08 -1.22

Performance 4 2.50 1.04 2.50 0.05 -0.10 -1.16


20

4.4 Multiple Regression Analysis

Multiple regression is a general statistical technique which use to analyze the

relationship between a dependent variable and a set of independent variables. Multiple

regression is used to determine the magnitude of direct and indirect influence that each

variable has on other variable that follow it in the presumed causal. The multiple

regression equation given of Y on X1,X2,…,Xk is given by (Kim and Kohout, 1975):

Y = b0 + b1X1 + b2X2 +…+ bkXk

As some questions in the questionnaire are categorical data, dichotomous

questions (0 = No, and 1 = Yes) are used in this questionnaire. Stockburger, (1998)

suggested that categorical variable with two levels can be entered as predictor or

predicted variable in multiple regression model. Categorical variables with two levels

may be directly entered as predictor or predicted variables in a multiple regression

model. When entered as predictor variables, interpretation of regression weights

depends upon how the variable is coded. If the dichotomous variable is coded as 0 and

1, the regression weight is added or subtracted to the predicted value of dependence

variable whether it is positive or negative. If the dichotomous variable is coded as -1

and 1, then if the regression weight is positive, it is subtracted from the group coded as

-1 and added to the group coded as 1. If the regression weight is negative, then addition

and subtraction is reversed. Dichotomous variables can be included in hypothesis tests

for R2 change like any other variable. In case that categorical variable with k level occur

it cannot be entered directly into a regression model, they need to transform into k-1

variables by using dummy coding or dummy variables (Reynolds, 2014).

4.4.1 Dummy Coding with Three Levels

The simplest case of dummy coding is when the categorical variable has three

levels and is converted to two dichotomous variables by using dummy coding or

dummy variables (Reynolds, 2014). For example the measurement of firm’s intension

with has three levels. In this case when the categorical variable has three levels this can

be accomplish by creating a new variable where one level of the categorical variable is

assigned the value of -2 and the other levels are assigned the value of 1. The signs are

arbitrary and may be reversed, that is, values of 2 and -1 would work equally well. The

second variable created as a dummy code will have the level of the categorical variable

coded as -2 given the value of 0 and the other values recoded as 1 and -1. In all cases

the sum of the dummy coded variable will be zero.


21

Chapter 5

Result

5.1 Respondent Profile

The respondent profile is shown in Table 5.1. The table showed the information

about the number of full-time employees and the capital structure of firms by providing

the frequency and percentage of each.

Table 5.1 Respondent Profiles

Number of full-time employees Frequency Percentage

1-99 23 20.72

20-49 20 18.02

50-99 19 17.12

100-199 8 7.21

200-299 13 11.71

300-399 3 2.70

400-499 1 0.90

500-999 4 3.60

1000-1499 5 4.50

1500-1999 3 2.70

More than 2000 8 7.21

Missing 4 3.60

Total 111 100.00

Capital Structure of firm Frequency Percentage

100% Locally-owned 81 72.97

100% Foreign-owned 9 8.11

Joint Venture 10 9.01

Missing 11 9.91

Total 111 100


22

Figure 5.1 Firm Location

Figure 5.1 showed the firm location by classifying the location into three types. First,

firm located in Bangkok were 40%. The other 20% were located in metropolitan area

including Samutprakhan, Pathumthani, Nonthaburi, and Nakhon Phatom provinces.

Most of respondents’ firms are located in other provincial districts (40%).

Figure 5.2 Type of Industry

Figure 5.2 showed the frequency of type of industry. Based on the responses, the

majority of the firms are in the food and beverage industry.

There are several ways to improve firm performance. Firm’s intension, technological

capability, knowledge management, collaboration and innovation are among the key

40%

20%

40%

Firm Location

Bangkok

Metropolitan

Provincial district

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

FOO

D, B

EVER

AG

ES, …

TEX

TILE

S

AP

PA

REL

,LEA

THER

FOO

TWEA

R

WO

OD

, WO

OD

…

PA

PER

, PA

PER

…

CH

EMIC

ALS

, …

PLA

STIC

, RU

BB

ER …

OTH

ER N

ON

-…

IRO

N, S

TEEL

NO

N-F

ERR

OU

S …

MET

AL-

PR

OD

UC

TS

MA

CH

INER

Y, …

CO

MP

UTE

RS

& …

OTH

ER E

LEC

TRO

NIC

…

PR

ECIS

ION

…

AU

TOM

OB

ILE,

…

OTH

ER …

HA

ND

CR

AFT

OTH

ERS

Types of industry


23

factors that have been suggested by past literature for performance improvement in

terms of increase productivity, reduce lead time and reduce cost in this paper. Table 12,

showed the descriptive statistics and correlation between each factors. According to

Table 12, the group discussion and meeting with director have a strong relationship

with highest value of correlation 0.805.

Based on the results from our multiple regression analysis:

Model 1: Reduced Defects during a Manufacturing Process (Y)

Y = 0.953 + 0.529X1 + 0.321X2 + 0.516X3

Where X1 = Technological Capability (patent)

X2 = Knowledge Management 4 (QC Circle on R&D or Any Other

Innovative Activities)

X3 = Innovation

There are three significant factors in this model which are Technological Capability

(Patent; β = 0.529; p = 0.005), KM4 (QC Circles on R&D or Any Other Innovative

Activities; β = 0.321; p = 0.002), and Innovation (β = 0.516; p = 0.029). These three

factors were found to be significantly and positively related to Performance1 (Reduced

Defects during a Manufacturing Process) at p<0.05. On the other hand, some aspects

of intension, Knowledge Management and Collaboration showed no significant

relationship (p>0.05).

Model 2: Reduced Labor Input or Man-Power (Y)

Y = 1.279 + 0.354X1 + 0.545X2 + 0.240X3 + (-0.249)X4 + 0.141X5

Where X1 = Intention 4 (Exploration)

X2 = Technological Capability (Patent)

X3 = Knowledge Management 5 (Manual, Printed Document)

X4 = Knowledge Management 10 (Electronic Documents,

Development of Database and Knowledge Sharing System)

X5 = Collaboration

Five factors have significant relationships with the Reduced Labor Input. These are:

Firm’s Intention 4 (Exploration; β = 0.354; p = 0.029), Technological Capability

(Patent; β = 0.545; p = 0.004), and KM5 (Manual; β = 0.240; p = 0.028), KM10

(Electronic Documents, Development of Database and Knowledge Sharing System; β

= -0.249; p = 0.013), and Collaboration (β = 0.141; p = 0.040). However, some factors

in Intention, KM and Innovation showed no significant relationship (p>0.05).

Model 3: Reduced Lead Time to Introduce New Product (Y)

Based on the result of Model 3, where Y = Reduced Lead Time to Introduce New

Product, there are no significant relationship (p > 0.05).


24

Model 4: Reduced Plant Maintenance Cost (Y)

Y = 1.191 + (-0.438)X1 + 0.198X2 + (-0.243)X3 + (-0.239)X4

Where X1 = Intention 3 (Exploitation)

X2 = Technological Capability (Patent)

X3 = Knowledge Management 3 (On the Job Training)

X4 = Knowledge Management 6 (Presentation Materials Prepared by

Your Establishment)

There are four factors showing significant relationships. The factors include:

Intention 3 (Exploitation; β = -0.438; p = 0.026), Technological Capability (Patent; β =

0.198; p = 0.009), KM3 (on the job training; β = -0.243; p = 0.047), and KM6

(Presentation Materials Prepared by Your Establishment; β = -0.239; p = 0.029). The

rest of the independent variables showed no significant relationship with Reduced Plant

Maintenance Cost (p > 0.05).


25

Table 5.2 Descriptive Statistics and Correlation

Mean SD C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C18

Intention 1

2.5654 0.77472

Intention 2

1.7314 0.80511 0.634**

Intention 3

1.7751 0.85610 0.673** 0.636**

Intention 4

1.7306 0.84280 0.605** 0.549** 0.758**

Technological

Capability 1

1.6626 0.50161 0.140** 0.053 0.114 0.013

Knowledge

Management 1

1.4855 1.44264 0.025 0.171* 0.246** 0.114 0.251**

Knowledge

Management 2

3.855 1.34853 0.079 0.206* 0.230** 0.123 0.135 0.805**

Knowledge

Management 3

4.1564 1.38331 0.007 0.273** 0.125 0.076 0.198* 0.734** 0.759**

Knowledge

Management 4

3.8865 1.42035 0.037 0.259** 0.212* 0.1620 0.053 0.580** 0.667** 0.692**

Knowledge

Management 5

3.7204 1.34651 0.102 0.280** 0.221** 0.110 0.173** 0.618** 0.644** 0.679** 0.657**

Knowledge

Management 6

3.3521 1.38759 0.072 0.143 0.120 0.095 0.273** 0.606** 0.545** 0.591** 0.632** 0.705**

Knowledge

Management 7

3.2638 1.41941 0.168* 0.289** 0.124 0.112 0.133 0.545** 0.639** 0.644** 0.625** 0.584** 0.583**

Knowledge

Management 8

3.6895 1.34812 0.152 0.178* 0.189* 0.190 0.157 0.482** 0.457** 0.488** 0.554** 0.542** 0.638** 0.486**

Knowledge

Management 9

2.9843 1.45145 0.084 0.185* 0.171* 0.130 0.094 0.541** 0.478** 0.499** 0.495** 0.580** 0.586** 0.583** 0.775**

Knowledge

Management 10

2.9692 1.32165 0.045 0.168* 0.102 0.091 0.198* 0.585** 0.611** 0.593** 0.481** 0.612** 0.553** 0.574** 0.553** 0.566**

Knowledge

Management 11

3.6256 1.22082 0.068 0.132 0.118 0.058 0.088 0.481** 0.583** 0.521** 0.452** 0.508** 0.476** 0.530** 0.415** 0.468** 0.593**

Knowledge

Management 12

3.1904 1.24711 0.063 0.119 0.115 0.082 0.063 0.474** 0.517** 0.522** 0.437** 0.471** 0.450** 0.485** 0.367** 0.401** 0.569* 0.885**

Collaboration

2.0538 1.36290 0.130 0.217* 0.228** 0.158 0.158 0.262** 0.285** 0.211* 0.189* 0.267** 0.294** 0.204* 0.261** 0.244** 0.196 0.251** 0.161

Innovation

1.8333 0.37404 0.085 0.042 0.091 0.017 0.123* 0.198 0.24 0.201 0.159** 0.219 0.128 0.163 0.212* 0.192* 0.168 0.230 0.196 0.089


26

Table 5.3 Pearson Correlation Coefficients of Cx and Px Variables

Reduce

Defects

Reduce Labor

Input

Reduce Lead

Time Reduce Cost

(P1) (P2) (P3) (P4)

Intention 1 -0.228 -0.205 0.166 -0.207

Intention 2 -0.206 -0.240 -0.253 0.053

Intention 3 0.122 -0.221 -0.234 -0.438*

Intention 4 0.242 0.354* 0.159 0.292**

Technological Capability 1 0.529** 0.545** 0.304 0.507

Knowledge Management 1 0.043 -0.006 -0.065 0.198

Knowledge Management 2 -0.211 -0.148 0.001 -0.046

Knowledge Management 3 0.035 0.042 -0.134 -0.243*

Knowledge Management 4 0.321** 0.156 0.230 0.194

Knowledge Management 5 0.019 0.240* 0.209 0.163

Knowledge Management 6 -0.133 -0.127 -0.115 -0.239*

Knowledge Management 7 0.074 0.087 0.052 0.109

Knowledge Management 8 -0.075 0.127 0.055 -0.005

Knowledge Management 9 0.199 -0.008 -0.005 0.022

Knowledge Management 10 -0.144 -0.249* -0.076 -0.042

Knowledge Management 11 -0.05 0.089 -0.323 0.067

Knowledge Management 12 -0.083 -0.199 0.214 -0.148

Collaboration 0.043 0.141* 0.151 0.074

Innovation 0.516* 0.315 0.305 0.427

R 0.537 0.540 0.452 0.470

R Square 0.289 0.292 0.204 0.221

Adjusted R Square 0.174 0.178 0.076 0.095

Sig. F Change 0.001 0.001 0.069 0.036

Notes: *Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); **Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level

(2-tailed)


27

Chapter 6

Discussion and Conclusion

In our hypothesis, we expected that all factors would have positive impacts on the

performance. However, in Model 1 (dv = Reduced the Defect during Manufacturing

Process), only Technological Capability (p = 0.005), KM4 (QC circles on R&D or any

other innovative activities; p = 0.002), and Innovation (p = 0.029) showed significant

impacts on the improvement in reducing defect during manufacturing process.

In Model 2 (dv = Performance of Reduced the Labor Input or Man-Hour), firm’s

Intention 4 (Exploration; p = 0.029), Technological Capability (Patent; p = 0.004), KM5

(Manual; p = 0.028), KM10 (Electronic Documents, Development of Database and

Knowledge Sharing System; p = 0.013), and Collaboration (p = 0.040) showed

significant impacts on the Reduced Labor Input.

In Model 4 (dv = Performance of Reduced Plant Maintenance Costs), Intention3

(Exploitation; p = 0.026), Technological Capability (Patent; p = 0.009), KM3 (On the

Job Training; p = 0.047), and KM6 (Presentation Materials Prepared by Your

Establishment; p = 0.029) showed significant impacts on the Reduced Maintenance

Costs. Eliminating expenditures related to inefficient tasks or activities can reduce the

costs.

In summary, Hypothesis 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 were supported. Based on the results, firm’s

patent, knowledge management activities and innovation can help reduce the defects

during a manufacturing process. Exploitation intent, patent, knowledge management,

and collaboration help firm reduce the labor input (man-hour). Knowledge management

activities (i.e., on the job training and presentation materials) improve firm performance

in term of reduced plant maintenance cost.

Thus, our results are in line with the past literature related to firm’s intention,

technological capability, knowledge management and collaboration. Based on the

results, this study confirmed points made by Tzokas et al. (2015) that firm can have a

better performance in term of new product development by using firm’s capability

(Technological Capability) to engage state-of-the-art technologies in its new product.

King (2009) suggested that knowledge management can help leverage and improve

organizational performance. Moreover, Fındık and Beyhan, (2015) suggested that firms

that engaged in external collaboration and internal collaboration also brings

improvements to the performance of the firm. Isobe et al., (2004) also suggested that

the exploitation contributes to short-term improvement and performance, and that

exploration contributes to long-term improvement and performance. Atalay et al.

(2013) suggested that innovation (product and process innovation) has significant and

positive impact on firm performance.

Our study confirmed that, firm’s intention, technological capability, knowledge

management, collaboration, and innovation can help firms improve their performance

in terms of increase productivity (reduced defects), reduced labor input, and reduced

cost.

We acknowledge that the present study has a limitation of small sample size and

generalizability. Our main contributions are the empirical results to confirm the

influences of supply chain collaboration related factors affecting firm performance.


28

References

Books and Book Articles

Blazey ML. Insights to performance excellence 2008: An inside look at the 2008

baldrige award criteria. ASQ Quality Press; 2008.

Barney JB, Arikan AM. The resource-based view: Origins and implications. Handbook

of strategic management. 2001 Oct 10;124188.

King, W. R. (2009). Knowledge management and organizational learning (pp. 3-13). Springer

US.

Hatry HP. Performance measurement: Getting results. The Urban Insitute; 2006.

Zey, C. (2002). Engineering statistics handbook. C. Croarkin, & P. Tobias (Eds.). NIST

iTL.

Articles

Afuah A. Mapping technological capabilities into product markets and competitive

advantage: the case of cholesterol drugs. Strategic Management Journal. 2002

Feb 1;23(2):171-9.

Armitage, H. M., & Atkinson, A. A. (1990). The choice of productivity measures in

organizations. Measures for manufacturing excellence, 91-126.

Atalay M, Anafarta N, Sarvan F. The relationship between innovation and firm

performance: An empirical evidence from Turkish automotive supplier industry.

Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2013 Apr 3;75:226-35.

Avermaete T, Viaene J, Morgan EJ, Crawford N. Determinants of innovation in small

food firms. European Journal of Innovation Management. 2003 Mar 1;6(1):8-17.

Bernauer, T., Engel, S., Kammerer, D., & Sejas Nogareda, J. (2006). Explaining Green

Innovation: Ten Years after Porter's Win-Win Proposition: How to Study the

Effects of Regulation on Corporate Environmental Innovation?.

Cachon GP, Fisher M. Supply chain inventory management and the value of shared

information. Management science. 2000 Aug;46(8):1032-48.


29

Cao M, Zhang Q. Supply chain collaboration: Impact on collaborative advantage and

firm performance. Journal of Operations Management. 2011 Mar 31;29(3):163-

80.

Chen, L., Zhao, X., Tang, O., Price, L., Zhang, S., & Zhu, W. (2017). Supply chain

collaboration for sustainability: A literature review and future research agenda.

International Journal of Production Economics.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological bulletin, 112(1), 155.

Darroch, J., & McNaughton, R. (2002). Examining the link between knowledge

management practices and types of innovation. Journal of intellectual capital,

3(3), 210-222.

Davenport, T. H., & Völpel, S. C. (2001). The rise of knowledge towards attention

management. Journal of knowledge management, 5(3), 212-222.

Edosomwan, J. A. (1985). A methodology for assessing the impact of computer

technology on productivity, production quality, job satisfaction, and

psychological stress in a specific assembly task (Doctoral dissertation, George

Washington University).

Edquist C, Hommen L, McKelvey MD. Innovation and employment: Process versus

product innovation. Edward Elgar Publishing; 2001.

Ejrami M, Salehi N, Ahmadian S. The Effect of Marketing Capabilities on Competitive

Advantage and Performance with Moderating Role of Risk Management in

Importation Companies. Procedia Economics and Finance. 2016 Jan 1;36:22-8.

Fawcett, S. E., Wallin, C., Allred, C., Fawcett, A. M., & Magnan, G. M. (2011).

Information technology as an enabler of supply chain collaboration: a dynamic‐capabilities perspective. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 47(1), 38-59.

Fındık D, Beyhan B. The Impact of External Collaborations on Firm Innovation

Performance: Evidence from Turkey. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences.

2015 Jul 3;195:1425-34.

Freier, I. (2003). Environmental management from an ecological modernization and

innovation perspective. Chemnitz University of Technology, Chemnitz.

Ghalayini, A. M., & Noble, J. S. (1996). The changing basis of performance

measurement. International Journal of Operations & Production

Management,16(8), 63-80.

Greve HR. Exploration and exploitation in product innovation. Industrial and Corporate

Change. 2007 Oct 1;16(5):945-75.


30

Gunasekaran A, Patel C, McGaughey RE. A framework for supply chain performance

measurement. International journal of production economics. 2004 Feb

18;87(3):333-47.

Haapanen L, Juntunen M, Juntunen J. Firms' capability portfolios throughout

international expansion: A latent class approach. Journal of Business Research.

2016 Dec 31;69(12):5578-86.

Hagedoorn J. Innovation and entrepreneurship: Schumpeter revisited. Industrial and

Corporate Change. 1996 Jan 1;5(3):883-96.

Håkansson, H., & Johanson, J. (1988). Formal and informal cooperation strategies in

international industrial networks.

Hamel, G., Doz, Y. L., & Prahalad, C. K. (1989). Collaborate with your competitors

and win. Harvard business review, 67(1), 133-139.

Hsieh MH, Tsai KH. Technological capability, social capital and the launch strategy

for innovative products. Industrial Marketing Management. 2007 May

31;36(4):493-502.

Isobe, T., Makino, S., & Montgomery, D. B. (2004). Exploitation, exploration, and firm

performance: The case of small manufacturing firms in Japan.

Jacoby, N. (2005). Exploration and exploitation strategies. What kind of analytical

models?.

Jensen, A., & Clausen, T. H. (2017). Origins and emergence of exploration and

exploitation capabilities in new technology-based firms. Technological

Forecasting and Social Change.

Kim, J. O., & Kohout, F. J. (1975). Multiple regression analysis: Subprogram

regression. Statistical package for the social sciences, 320-367.

Kliman HJ, Feinberg RF, Strauss JF, Haimowitz JE. Interactions between human term

trophoblasts and endometrium in vitro. Placenta. 1989 Sep 1;10(5):453-4.

Kumar S, Duhan M, Haleem A. Evaluation of factors important to enhance

productivity. Cogent Engineering. 2016 Dec 31;3(1):1145043.

Lall, S. (1992). Technological capabilities and industrialization. World development,

20(2), 165-186.

Lapide L. What about measuring supply chain performance. Achieving Supply Chain

Excellence Through Technology. 2000 Apr 1;2(2):287-97.

Lederer, P. J., & Li, L. (1997). Pricing, production, scheduling, and delivery-time

competition. Operations Research, 45(3), 407-420.


31

Liebowitz, J. (2001). Knowledge management and its link to artificial

intelligence. Expert systems with applications, 20(1), 1-6.

March JG. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization

science. 1991 Feb;2(1):71-87.

Martinsons MG, Davison RM, Huang Q. Strategic knowledge management failures in

small professional service firms in China. International Journal of Information

Management. 2017 Aug 31;37(4):327-38.

Meca A, Timmer J. Supply chain collaboration. I-Tech Education and Publishing;

2008.

Mlinga, R. S., & Wells, J. (2002). Collaboration between formal and informal

enterprises in the construction sector in Tanzania. Habitat International, 26(2),

269-280.

Mugellesi Dow R, Pallaschke S. Managing knowledge for spacecraft operations at

ESOC. Journal of Knowledge Management. 2010 Sep 14;14(5):659-77.

Myers MB, Cheung MS. Sharing global supply chain knowledge. MIT Sloan

Management Review. 2008 Jul 1;49(4):67.

Narula R. R&D collaboration by SMEs: new opportunities and limitations in the face

of globalisation. Technovation. 2004 Feb 29;24(2):153-61.

Parlby D, Taylor R. The power of knowledge: A business guide to knowledge

management. Online], cited. 2000.

Pavitt, K. (1998). Technologies, products and organization in the innovating firm: what

Adam Smith tells us and Joseph Schumpeter doesn't. Industrial and Corporate

change, 7(3), 433-452.

Payne T, Peters MJ. What is the right supply chain for your products?. The International

Journal of Logistics Management. 2004 Jul 1;15(2):77-92.

Phong-arjarn, E., & Jeenanunta, C. (2013). Exploring Supply Chain Collaboration in

Thai Major Industries. วารสาร มหาวทยาลย นเรศวร: วทยาศาสตร และ เทคโนโลย, 19(3), 22-34.

Pillania RK. Strategic issues in knowledge management in small and medium

enterprises. Knowledge Management Research & Practice. 2008 Dec 1;6(4):334-

8.

Qu, W. G., & Yang, Z. (2015). The effect of uncertainty avoidance and social trust on

supply chain collaboration. Journal of Business Research, 68(5), 911-918.


32

Ramanathan U. Aligning supply chain collaboration using Analytic Hierarchy Process.

Omega. 2013 Apr 30;41(2):431-40.

Ratajczak-Mrozek M, Małys Ł. Supply chain cooperation and company performance.

Argumenta Oeconomica. 2012(2 (29)):89-107.

Reichert, F. M., & Zawislak, P. A. (2014). Technological capability and firm

performance. Journal of technology management & innovation, 9(4), 20-35.

Rothaermel FT, Deeds DL. Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: A

system of new product development. Strategic management journal. 2004 Mar

1;25(3):201-21.

Rothaermel, F. T., & Deeds, D. L. (2004). Exploration and exploitation alliances in

biotechnology: A system of new product development. Strategic management

journal, 25(3), 201-221.

Seleim A, Khalil O. Knowledge management and organizational performance in the

Egyptian software firms. International Journal of Knowledge Management

(IJKM). 2007 Oct 1;3(4):37-66.

Simatupang TM, Sridharan R. A benchmarking scheme for supply chain collaboration.

Benchmarking: An International Journal. 2004 Feb 1;11(1):9-30.

Skinner, W. (1986). The productivity paradox. Management Review, 75(9), 41-45.

Sohn SY, Kim HS, Moon TH. Predicting the financial performance index of technology

fund for SME using structural equation model. Expert Systems with Applications.

2007 Apr 30;32(3):890-8.

Song X, Shi W, Ma Y, Yang C. Impact of informal networks on opinion dynamics in

hierarchically formal organization. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its

Applications. 2015 Oct 15;436:916-24.

Subramaniam, M., & Youndt, M. A. (2005). The influence of intellectual capital on the

types of innovative capabilities. Academy of management Journal, 48(3), 450-

463.

Sveiby, K. E. (1997). The new organizational wealth: Managing & measuring

knowledge-based assets. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Teece D, Pisano G. The dynamic capabilities of firms: an introduction. Industrial and

corporate change. 1994 Jan 1;3(3):537-56.

Teece DJ, Pisano G, Shuen A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management.

Strategic management journal. 1997 Aug 1:509-33.


33

Thai MT, Turkina E. Macro-level determinants of formal entrepreneurship versus

informal entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing. 2014 Jul

31;29(4):490-510.

Tödtling F, Kaufmann A. SMEs in regional innovation systems and the role of

innovation support--The case of upper Austria. The Journal of Technology

Transfer. 2002 Jan 1;27(1):15-26.

Tsimiklis P, Ceschin F, Green S, Qin SF, Song J, Baurley S, Rodden T, Makatsoris C.

A consumer-centric open innovation framework for food and packaging

manufacturing.

Tzokas N, Kim YA, Akbar H, Al-Dajani H. Absorptive capacity and performance: The

role of customer relationship and technological capabilities in high-tech SMEs.

Industrial Marketing Management. 2015 May 31;47:134-42.

Ulrich D, Lake D. Organizational capability: Creating competitive advantage. The

Executive. 1991 Jan 1;5(1):77-92.

Verona G. A resource-based view of product development. Academy of management

review. 1999 Jan 1;24(1):132-42.

Whipple JM, Russell D. Building supply chain collaboration: a typology of

collaborative approaches. The International Journal of Logistics Management.

2007 Aug 21;18(2):174-96.

Zeng SX, Xie XM, Tam CM. Relationship between cooperation networks and

innovation performance of SMEs. technovation. 2010 Mar 31;30(3):181-94.

Zhang H, Wu F, Cui AS. Balancing market exploration and market exploitation in

product innovation: A contingency perspective. International Journal of Research

in Marketing. 2015 Sep 30;32(3):297-308.


34

Appendices


35

Appendix A

Questionnaire Survey (English version)

ERIA FY2015 (2015-2016) Establishment Survey in Area, Country

Person we should contact if there are any queries regarding the form:

Please write your contact information

Company

Name

Address

Name of

Respondent

Title/Position

Tel E-mail

Website


36

FY2015 (2015-2016) Establishment Survey in Area, Country A: Profile of Your Establishment

Q1. When, how and where was your establishment founded and location of your establishment at

present

Q1.1. When and where was your company first established in

your country?

Year:

Locatio

n:

Q1.2. Did your establishment spin-off from a multinational

firm? 1. Yes 0. No

Q1.3. Current Location of your

establishment?

1. Province

2.

City/Municipality

3. Industrial park

Q1.4. Is your establishment state-owned? 1. Yes

2. Formerly state-

owned 0. No

Q2. What is the type of your establishment? (Please tick ONE appropriate box)

1. Headquarters/Main

office

2. Regional

Headquarters

3.

Factory/Plant

4. Branch Office/Sales

Office Q3. Capital structure of your establishment at present?

Q3.1. What is the capital structure of your establishment at present? (Please tick ONE appropriate box)

1. 100% Locally-owned

(Go to Q4)

2. 100% Foreign-owned

(MNC)

3. Joint Venture (JV, Locally and

Foreign-owned) Q3.2. If your establishment is 100% Foreign-owned or Joint Venture, what are nationalities of the

major FOREIGN investors? (Please mark (X) or tick ALL appropriate boxes) 1.

Indonesian

2. Filipino 3. Thai 4.

Vietnamese

5.

Malaysian

6. Singaporean 7. Chinese

8. Japanese 9. South

Korean

10.

Taiwanese

11. American 12.

European

13. Other,

specify:

Q4. Size of your establishment at present (Please tick ONE appropriate box)

Q4.1. Number of full-time employees

(Persons)

Q4.2. Total Assets (US$)

1. 1-19

persons

2. 20-49

3. 50-99

4. 100-199

5. 200-299

6. 300-399

7. 400-499

8. 500-999

9. 1,000-1,499

10. 1,500-1,999

11. 2,000 or

more

1. Less than

10,000

2. 10,000-24,999

3. 25,000-49,999

4. 50,000-74,999

5. 75,000-

99,999

6. 100,000-

499,999

7. 500,000-

999,999 8.

1 million-4.9

mil.

9. 5 mil.-9.9 mil.

10. 10 million or

more

Q5. Main business activity of your establishment at present? (Please tick ONE appropriate box)

1. Food, beverages, tobacco 2. Textiles 3. Apparel, leather 4. Footwear 5. Wood, wood products 6. Paper, paper products, printing 7. Chemicals, chemical

products

8. Plastic, rubber products 9. Other non-metallic mineral

products 10. Iron, steel 11. Non-ferrous metals 12. Metal products 13. Machinery, equipment, tools 14. Computers & computer parts

15. Other electronics & components

16. Precision instruments 17. Automobile, auto parts 18. Other transportation

equipments and parts 19. Handicraft 20. Other, specify:

Q6. What does your establishment mainly produce at present? (Please tick ONE appropriate box)

1. Raw materials 2. Raw material

processing

3. Components and parts 4. Final products

Q7. Does your establishment manufacture products under your

customer’s brand name? 1. Yes 0. No


37

Q8. Does your establishment manufacture products according to your

own design or drawings? 1. Yes 0. No

Q9. Average product life cycle in your “industry”: How often are new products released? (Please

tick ONE appropriate box)

1. Custom-made 2. Every 6 months or less 3. Every 7-11 months 4. Every 1-2 years 5. Every 3-4 years 6. Every 5-6 years 7. Every 7 years or more Q10. Annual changes in business performance at present (Please tick ONE appropriate box)

Q10.1. Sales 1. Substantial

Increase 2.

increase

3. almost

same

4.

decrease 5. Substantial

decrease

Q10.2. Profits 1. Substantial

Increase 2.

increase

3. almost

same

4.


decrease

Q10.3. Export value 1. Substantial

Increase 2.

increase

3. almost

same

4.

decrease 5. No export

Q10.4. Production

cost 1. Substantial

Increase 2.

increase

3. almost

same

4.


decrease

Q10.5. Labor

productivity 1. Substantial

Increase 2.

increase

3. almost

same

4.


decrease B: Achievements for Upgrading and Innovation

Q11. Have you tried to introduce a new product in the last

2 years (2014-2015)? 1. Yes (Q11.1) 0. No (Q11.6)

Q11.1. Introduced a new product, redesigning packaging or significantly changing appearance design of your existing products

1. Achieved 2. Tried 0. not tried yet

Q11.2. Introduced a new product, significantly improving your existing products with respect to its capabilities, user friendliness, components, subsystems, etc.


Q11.3. Development of a totally new product based on the “existing” technologies for your establishment


Q11.4. Development of a totally new product based on “new” technologies for your establishment


Q11.5. To which market was the new product shipped (if introduced)?

1. Existing market where your establishment is operating

1. Yes 0. No

2. New market to your establishment 1. Yes 0. No

Q11.6. Have you developed a new customer? (Please tick ALL appropriate boxes)

1. Local Customer 2. MNC/JV customer 0. no Q12.Intellectual property right (Please tick ONE appropriate box)

Q12.1. Does your establishment hold an intellectual property right (patent, utility

model, trade mark)? 1. Yes

0. No

Q12.2. Did you obtain an intellectual property right in the last 2 years (2014-2015)? 1. Yes

0. No

Q12.3. Have you suffered damages from patent infringement or leakage of trade secrete

or information?

1. Yes

0. No Q13. Has your establishment improved the followings in the last 2 years (2014-2015)?

Q13.1. Reduced defects during a manufacturing

process 0. No 1. Little 2. Somewhat 3. much

Q13.2. Reduced labor input (man-hour) 0. No 1. Little 2. Somewhat 3. much

Q13.3. Reduced lead time to introduce a new

product 0. No 1. Little 2. Somewhat 3. much

Q13.4. Reduced unscheduled line stop 0. No 1. Little 2. Somewhat 3. much

Q13.5. Reduced worker’s injuries 0. No 1. Little 2. Somewhat 3. much

Q13.6. Reduced plant accidents 0. No 1. Little 2. Somewhat 3. much

Q13.7. Reduced delivery delay 0. No 1. Little 2. Somewhat 3. much

Q13.8. Reduced dispersion in product quality. 0. No 1. Little 2. Somewhat 3. much


38

Q13.9. Reduced time to changeover (converting

production line) 0. No 1. Little 2. Somewhat 3. much

Q13.10. Reduced claims from customers 0. No 1. Little 2. Somewhat 3. much

Q13.11. Reduced plant maintenance costs 0. No 1. Little 2. Somewhat 3. much Q14 Has your establishment adopted the following international standard? If YES, when did your

establishment adopt it?

Q14.1. ISO 9000 series (ISO 9000/9001) 1.

Yes 0. No

Q14.2. ISO 14000 series (ISO 14000/14001) 1.

Yes 0. No

Q14.3. Does your establishment require your suppliers to adopt ISO? (Please tick ONE appropriate

box)

1. Only ISO 9000 series

2. Only ISO 14000 series

3. Both 4. None Q15. Quality Control (QC)

Q15.1. Has your establishment adopted so called 3S or 5S (Seiri, Seiton, Seisou, Seiketsu, Shitsuke)?

1. Yes

0. No

Q15.2. Does your establishment operate a QC circle 1. Yes

0. No

Q15.3. Does your establishment have a system/practice to disseminate successful experiences of a QC circle group across your establishment?

1. Yes

0. No

Q15.4. Does your establishment have a system/practice to learn from successful experiences of a QC circle group of your customer/supplier?

1. Yes

0. No

Q15.5. Does your establishment have a system/practice to share successful experiences of a QC circle group of your establishment with your customer/supplier?

1. Yes

0. No

Q15.6. Does your establishment have employee suggestion programs for improvements?

1. Yes

0. No

Q15.7. Does your establishment provide employees with rewards for suggestions/QC activities?

1. Yes

0. No

Q15.8. Has your establishment adopted statistical quality control? 1. Yes

0. No

Q15.9. Does your establishment apply PDCA (plan-do-check-act) for quality management?

1. Yes

0. No Q16. How good can your establishment maintain work

conditions in comparison with your competitors? (Please

tick ONE appropriate box)

1.

Much

worse

2.

Worse 3.

Almost

same

4.

better

5.

Much

better

Q16.1. Necessary items are separated from unnecessary items.

Q16.2. Items are placed conveniently so that everyone can find what they need.

Q16.3. Your workplace is kept clean, both during and after work.

C: Innovative Activities to Realize Development of New Business/Product/Market, or

Introduction of Production Process/Managerial Organization

Q17. Does your establishment carry out R&D activities? (Please tick ONE appropriate box)

Q17.1. The ratio between R&D expenditure and sales at

present?

0. No Expenditure 1. Less than

0.5%

2. 0.5-0.99% 3. 1% or more

Q17.2. When did your establishment start

R&D activities?

0. Not yet 1. before

1990 2. 1990-94 3. 1995-99

4. 2000-

04 5. 2005-9 6. 2010-15

Q17.3 . How many personnel who are

dedicated to R&D activities do you have?

0. None 1. 1-5

persons 2. 6-10 3. 11-20

4. 21-30 5. 31-50 6. 51-100 7. 101 or

more


39

Q17.4. Does your establishment conduct small group activities among R&D

personnel? 1. Yes 0. No

Q17.5. Does your R&D personnel have regular meetings to discuss their common

problems or solution? 1. Yes 0. No

Q17.6. Does your establishment have R&D department specifically dedicated to

R&D activities? 1. Yes 0. No

Q17.7. Does your establishment develop personnel in charge of R&D at present? 1.

Yes 0. No

Q18. Do you organize a cross-functional team when you try to develop new product, process, management, or business? If you organize a cross-functional team, which departments are normally involved in such team? (Please tick ALL appropriate boxes)

1. No team 4. Development 7. Quality

Control 10. Human Resources

13. IT System

2. Market Research

5. Production Engineering

8. Procurement

11. Sales & Marketing

14. Others,

specify:

3. Research 6. Manufacturing 9. Accounting 12. Logistics/Distribution

Q18.1. Where is a cross-functional team located?

1. No team 2. Headquarters/ main office

3. Factory Q19. Do your managers or employees who engage in different departments or works have regular meetings to discuss their common problems or solutions? If they have regular meetings, which departments are normally involved in such meetings? (Please tick ALL appropriate boxes)

1. No meeting 4. Development 7. Quality

Control 10. Human Resources

13. IT System

2. Market Research

5. Production Engineering

8. Procurement

11. Sales & Marketing

14. Others,

specify:

3. Research 6. Manufacturing 9. Accounting 12. Logistics/Distribution

Q20. Who propose ideas of new

business, product, service, process,

market, managerial organization?

(Please tick ALL appropriate boxes)

0.

No

propos

al

1.

New

Busine

ss

2.

New

Product,

Service

3.

New

Productio

n Process

4.

New

Market

5.

New

Manageri

al

Organizat

ion

Q20.1. President, Owner

Q20.2. Director/Executive in charge

Q20.3. Middle manager in charge

Q20.4. Line (group) leader

Q20.5. R&D personnel

Q20.6. Production engineer

Q20.7. Marketing personnel

Q20.8. Worker/ Staff member

Q20.9. Customer

Q21. How do you share experiences (success or failure) of R&D or

any other innovative activities? (Please tick ONE appropriate box)

0.

No

t

Pra

ctic

ing

1.

No

t

imp

ort

ant

2.

No

t v

ery

imp

ort

ant

3.

So

mew

hat

imp

ort

ant

4.

Ver

y

imp

ort

ant

Q21.1. Group discussion

Q21.2. Meeting with director

Q21.3. On the job training

Q21.4. QC circles on R&D or any other innovative activities

Q21.5. Manuals


40

Q21.6. Presentation materials prepared by your establishment

Q21.7. Documents concerning proposals or claims from your customers or suppliers

Q21.8. Drawing, blueprint

Q21.9. CAD/CAM data

Q21.10. Electronic documents, development of database and knowledge sharing system

Q21.11. Information exchange among employees during lunch time or break time

Q21.12. Information exchange among employees after working hours outside your firm

Q21.13. Information exchange among employees using Facebook, twitter, or other SNS

Q22. How important are information and communication

technologies (ICTs) for your employees engaged in R&D or any

other innovative activities to obtain the following information?

(Please ALL appropriate boxes)

0.

No

t

Pra

ctic

ing

1.

No

t

imp

ort

ant

2.

No

t v

ery

imp

ort

ant

3.

So

mew

hat

imp

ort

ant

4.

Ver

y

imp

ort

ant

Q22.1. Customer needs

Q22.2. New customer

Q22.3. New supplier

Q22.4. New technology

Q22.5. New product or service

Q22.6. New production process

Q23. Who take the lead in the following R&D or any other

innovative activities in your establishment under the supervision of

your president or owner? (Please tick ONE appropriate box)

1.

Em

plo

yee

s

(Bo

tto

m-u

p)

2.

Mid

dle

man

ager

3.

To

p

man

agem

ent

(To

p d

ow

n)

Q23.1. Development of new business

Q23.2. Development of new product or service

Q23.3. Development of new production process

Q23.4. Development of new market

Q23.5. Development of new managerial organization


41

Q24. What are your funding sources for product/process improvements? (Please tick ALL

appropriate boxes)

1. Personal savings of top management

2. Family 3. Friends

4. Private bank (collateralized loan)

5. Private bank (uncollateralized loan)

6. Public bank

7. Non-bank financial institutions

8. Local authority (loan, subsidies)

9. Retained earnings

10. Parent firm, group firm 11. Corporate customer 12. Supplier

13. Trading firm 14. Personal investor (including Angel)

15. Others, specify:

D: External Sources of New Technologies and Information for Upgrading and Innovation

Q25. How to solve technical problems in your innovative activities? (Please tick

ONE appropriate box)

1.

Yes

0.

No

Q25.1. Select employees and let them study by themselves

Q25.2. Let employees participate in training course outside your firm

Q25.3. Employ a new employee who has new technologies

Q25.4. Ask mother firms or group firms to dispatch engineers or advisors

Q25.5. Hire consultants

Q25.6. Ask advice from or cooperate with local customer (100% local capital)

Q25.7. Ask advice from or cooperate with local supplier

Q25.8. Ask advice from or cooperate with foreign-owned (MNC/JV) customer

Q25.9. Ask advice from or cooperate with foreign-owned (MNC/JV) supplier

Q25.10. Ask advice from or cooperate with capital goods suppliers

Q25.11. Ask advice from or cooperate with public organizations (government, public agency)

Q25.12. Ask advice from or cooperate with local business organizations

Q25.13. Ask advice from or cooperate with universities

Q25.14. Ask advice from or cooperate with public research institutes

Q25.15. Patents filed or granted in your country or other countries Q26. Has your establishment used the following services

that public institutions or universities provide in the last

two years (2014-2015)?

(Please tick ALL appropriate boxes)

1.Public

institutions 2. Universities

0. Not

use

Q26.1. Technical consultation

Q26.2. Testing or laboratory services

Q26.3. Rental of instruments or testing machines

Q26.4. Technical seminars or training

Q26.5. Information on foreign technical standards Q27. Interactions with engineers of your production partners (Customer and/or Supplier) (Please tick ONE appropriate box).

Q27.1. Does your establishment’s engineers communicate directly with engineers of

your customer?

1.

Yes 0. No

Q27.2. Does your establishment’s engineers communicate directly with engineers of

your supplier?

1.

Yes 0. No

Q27.3. Does your establishment have any R&D meetings with other firms? 1.

Yes 0. No


42

E: Human Resources and Human Resource Development (HRD) for Upgrading and Innovation Q28. Backgrounds of your establishment’s top management (CEO) (Please tick ONE appropriate box)

Q28.1. Country origin of the top management 1. Local 2. Foreign country (Specify:

Q28.2. Age of your establishment’s top

management

1.

20s

2.

30s

3.

40s

4.

50s

5.

60s 6. 70s or over

Q28.3. What is the educational record of your top

management?

1.

Bachelor 2. Master 3. Ph.D. 4. Other

Q28.4. Was or Is the top management an engineer? 1. Yes 0. No

Q28.5. Is the top management founder or from founder’s family?

1. Founder 2. Founder’s

family 0. No

Q28.6. Does the top management have experiences working for MNCs/Joint Ventures (JVs)?

1. Yes 0. No

Q28.7. Does the top management have experiences working for state-owned enterprises (SOEs) or former SOEs?

1. Yes 0. No

Q29. Background of establishment’s factory manager

Q29.1. Does your establishment have a factory manager?

1. Yes (Q29.2-Q29.5)

0. No(Q30)

Q29.2. Country origin of the factory manager 1.

Local 2. Foreign country (Specify: )

Q29.3. Is the factory manager a founder or from founder’s family?

1. Founder 2. Founder’s

family 0. No

Q29.4. Does the factory manager have experiences working for MNCs/Joint Ventures (JVs)?

1. Yes 0. No

Q29.5. Does the factory manager have experiences working for state-owned enterprises (SOEs) or former SOEs?

1. Yes 0. No

Q30. Do you have a HRD program for blue-collar workers to provide cross-training/job rotation?

1. Yes 0. No

Q31. Do you recruit high professional workers from outside of your establishment?

1. Yes 0. No

Q32. Do you train indigenous workers to become high professional? 1. Yes 0. No


43

F: Business Linkages with Main Corporate Customer and Supplier at Present Q33. Please answer, considering one customer and supplier most important for your business

(Please tick ONE box)

Most important customer

(c) Most important supplier (s)

Q33.1. What is the capital structure of the main customer/suppler?

1. 100% locally private owned 2. 100% foreign owned 3. Joint Venture 4. (Formerly) State-owned

1. 100% locally private owned 2. 100% foreign owned 3. Joint Venture 4. (Formerly) State-owned

Q33.2. Does your establishment have a capital tie-up with the main customer/supplier?

1. Yes (With capital tie-up) 0. No (Without capital tie-up)

1. Yes (With capital tie-up) 0. No (Without capital tie-up)

Q33.3. Employment size of the corporate customer/supplier

1. 99 or less employees 2. 100- 199 employees 3. 200- 299 employees 4. 300 to 999 employees 5. 1000 or more

1. 99 or less employees 2. 100- 199 employees 3. 200- 299 employees 4. 300 to 999 employees 5. 1000 or more

Q33.4. Please indicate distance (kilo meter) from your establishment to the main customer/supplier.

1. 0- 10 km 2. 11- 25 3. 26- 50 4. 51-100 5. 101-200 6. 201-300

7. 301-400 8. 401-500 9. 501-

1,000 10. 1,001-

2,000 11. 2,001 or

more

1. 0- 10 km 2. 11- 25 3. 26- 50 4. 51-100 5. 101-200 6. 201-300

7. 301-400 8. 401-500 9. 501-

1,000 10. 1,001-

2,000 11. 2,001 or

more

Q33.5. Does the main customer require your establishment to adopt ISO9000/14000?

1. only ISO9000 2. only ISO14000

3. Both 0. No

1. only ISO9000 2. only ISO14000

3. Both 0. No

Q33.6. Does your establishment dispatch

personnel to the main customer/supplier? 1. Yes 0. No 1. Yes 0. No

Q33.7. Does the main customer/supplier dispatch personnel to your establishment?

1. Yes 0. No 1. Yes 0. No

Q33.8. Does your establishment make suggestions to improve product or process control of the main customer/supplier? (Please tick ALL appropriate boxes)

1. Product 2. Quality control 3. Cost control 4. Delivery, inventory control


Q33.9 . Does the main customer/supplier make suggestions to improve your product or process control? (Please tick ALL appropriate boxes)



Q33.10. Do you provide any training to the main customer/supplier?


Q33.11. Do you receive any training from the main customer/supplier?


Q33.12. Do you design a new product or service with the main customer/supplier?


Q33.13. Does the main customer/supplier conduct R&D?


Q33.14. Does you have research meetings with the main customer/supplier?


Q33.15. Does the main customer/supplier export?



44

Q33.16. Does the main customer/supplier import?


Note: Location of the main customer/supplier

(to be answered in Q34) (to be answered in Q35) G. Geographical Distribution of Production Networks (Please refer to the country/region ID codes below to answer Q34-36). ID Country/Region ID Country/Region ID Country/Region

1. Indonesia 8. Malaysia 15. South Korea

2. Philippines 9. Cambodia 16. Taiwan

3. Thailand 10. Lao PDR 17. India

4. Vietnam (Greater Hanoi) 11. Myanmar 18. Australia or New Zealand

5. Vietnam (Greater Ho Chi Minh)

12. China (Mainland) 19. United States

6. Vietnam (Central/other regions)

13. Hong Kong 20. Europe

7. Singapore 14. Japan 21. Rest of the World Q34. Where is the most important corporate customer (in Q33) located? (Please tick ONE appropriate box) 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

Q35. Where is the most important supplier (in Q33) located? (Please tick ONE appropriate box) 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

Q36. Have you secured new customers in the last 2 years (2014-2015)? If yes, where are they located? Please tick ALL appropriate boxes.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.


45

Appendix B

Questionnaire Survey (Thai version)

แบบส ำรวจ ERIA (2015-2016) ในพนท (ประเทศไทย)

โปรดระบบคคลทสำมำรถตดตอได

กรณำกรอกขอมลกำรตดตอ ชอบรษท

ทอย

ชอผกรอกแบบสอบถาม ต าแหนง

โทรศพท อเมลล

เวบไซต


46

แบบส ำรวจ ERIA (2015-2016) ในพนท (ประเทศไทย) A: ขอมลกำรกอตงบรษท

ขอ 1. ขอมลกำรด ำเนนกจกำรและทตงของบรษทในปจจบน

ขอ 1.1. บรษทของทานไดกอตงขนเมอใดและทใดในประเทศไทย ป: สถานท

ขอ 1.2. บรษทของทานแยกตวมาจากบรษทขามชาตใชหรอไม 1. ใช 0. ไม

ขอ 1.3. สถานทกอตงบรษทของทานอยทใด 1.จงหวด

2. อ าเภอ

3. นคมอตสาหกรรม

ขอ 1.4. บรษทของทานเปนของรฐบาลหรอไม 1. ใช 2. จากเดมรฐเปนเจาของ 0. ไมใช

ขอ 2. รปแบบของกำรด ำเนนธรกจของบรษท (โปรดเลอกค าตอบทตรงกบการด าเนนงานในบรษทของทานมากทสด)

1. ส านกงานใหญ 2. ส านกงานใหญในภมภาค 3. โรงงาน 4. สาขาส านกงานขาย

ขอ 3. โครงสรำงเงนลงทนของบรษทในปจจบน

ขอ 3.1. โครงสรางเงนลงทนของบรษททานเปนประเภทใด (โปรดเลอกค าตอบทตรงกบการด าเนนงานในบรษทของทานมากทสด)

1. บรษทภายในประเทศ 100%

(ไปทขอ 4)

2. บรษทตางชาต 100%

(MNC) 3. บรษทรวมทนกบตางชาต

ขอ 3.2. ถาค าตอบขอท 3.1 เปนขอท “2” (บรษทขามชาต 100%) หรอ ขอท “3” (บรษทรวมทนกบตางชาต) ประเทศไหนทเปนนกลงทนตางชาตหลกในบรษทของทาน (โปรดเลอกขอทตรงกบขอมลของบรษททานและสามารถเลอกไดมากกวา 1 ค าตอบ)

1.

อนโดนเซย

2. ฟลปปนส 3. ไทย 4.

เวยดนาม

5.

มาเลเซย

6. สงคโปร 7. จน

8. ญป น 9. เกาหลใต 10. ไตหวน 11. อเมรกา 12. ยโรป 13. อนๆ

โปรดระบ:

ขอ 4. ขนำดของบรษท (โปรดเลอกค าตอบทตรงกบการด าเนนงานในบรษทของทานมากทสด)

ขอ 4.1. จ านวนพนกงานประจ าในบรษทของทาน

(คน)

ขอ 4.2. มลคาสนทรพยรวมในบรษทของทาน (บาท)

1. 1-19

2. 20-49

3. 50-99

4. 100-199

5. 200-

299

6. 300-

399

7. 400-

499

8. 500-

999

9. 1,000-1,499

10. 1,500-1,999

11. มากกวา 2,000

1. นอยกวา 300,000

2. 300,000 -

799,999

3. 800,000 -

1.59 ลาน

4. 1.60 – 2.49

ลาน

5. 2.50 – 2.99

ลาน

6. 3.00 – 15.99

ลาน

7. 16.00 – 29.99

ลาน 8.

30.00 – 159.99 ลาน

9. 160 - 299.99 ลาน

10. มากกวา 300

ลาน

ขอ 5. ประเภทของสนคำในบรษท (โปรดเลอกค าตอบทตรงกบการด าเนนงานในบรษทของทานมากทสด)

1. อาหาร เครองดม ผลตภณฑยาสบ 2. สงทอ 3. เสอผา เครองนงหม เครองหนง 4. รองเทา 5. ไมแปรรป ผลตภณฑจากไม 6. กระดาษ ผลตภณฑกระดาษ และ สงพมพ

8. พลาสตก ผลตภณฑจากยาง 9. ผลตภณฑจากแรอโลหะ

10. เหลก เหลกกลา 11. โลหะนอกกลมเหลก 12. สนคาโลหะภณฑ 13. เครองจกร และ อปกรณ 14. คอมพวเตอร และ อปกรณ

15. อปกรณอเลกทรอนกส ชนสวนอเลกทรอนกส

16. เครองมอในการวดและทดสอบ

17. ยานยนต ชนสวนยานยนต 18. เครองอปกรณและการขนสงอนๆ 19. สนคาหตถกรรม


47

7. เคมภณฑ ผลตภณฑเคม 20. อนๆ โปรดระบ:

ขอ 6. รปแบบของกำรผลตสนคำหลกของบรษทในปจจบน (โปรดเลอกค าตอบทตรงกบการด าเนนงานในบรษทของทาน)

1. วตถดบ 2. กระบวนการท าวตถดบ 3. สวนประกอบ/ชนสวน 4. สนคาส าเรจรป

ขอ 7. รปแบบบรษทของทานเปนแบบรบจางผลตสนคาตามแบบทลกคาก าหนด OEM

(Original Equipment Manufacturer) การผลตสนคาภายใตชอแบรนดของผซอของทานใชหรอไม

1. ใช 0. ไมใช

ขอ 8. บรษทของทานมการออกแบบสนคาเองใชหรอไม (OBM) 1. ใช 0. ไมใช

ขอ 9. วงจรชวตผลตภณฑเฉลยในอตสำหกรรมของทำน มกำรน ำผลตภณฑใหมของทำนออกจ ำหนำยบอยแคไหน (โปรดเลอกค าตอบทตรงกบการด าเนนงานในบรษทของทานมากทสด)

1. ท าตามลกคาสง 2. ทก6เดอน/นอยกวา 6 เดอน

3. ทก 7 เดอน - 11 เดอน

4. ทก 1 - 2 ป

5. ทก 3 - 4 ป 6. 5 - 6 ป 7. ทก 7 ปขนไป

ขอ 10. กำรเปลยนแปลงในผลประกอบกำรทำงธรกจในปจจบน (โปรดเลอกค าตอบทตรงกบการด าเนนงานในบรษทของทานมากทสด)

ขอ 10.1. ยอดขาย 1. เพมขนมาก 2. เพมขน 3. เทาเดม 4. ลดลง 5. ลดลงมาก

ขอ 10.2. ก าไร 1. เพมขนมาก 2. เพมขน 3. เทาเดม 4. ลดลง 5. ลดลงมาก

ขอ 10.3. มลคาการสงออก

1. เพมขนมาก 2. เพมขน 3. เทาเดม 4. ลดลง 5. ไมมการสงออก

ขอ 10.4. ตนทนการผลต

1. เพมขนมาก 2. เพมขน 3. เทาเดม 4. ลดลง 5. ลดลงมาก

ขอ 10.5. ผลตภาพแรงงาน๖(จ านวนผลผลต/แรงงาน 1 คน)

1. เพมขนมาก 2. เพมขน 3. เทาเดม 4. ลดลง 5. ลดลงมาก

B: ควำมส ำเรจในกำรยกระดบธรกจ (Upgrading) และนวตกรรม (Innovation)

ขอ 11. บรษทของทานไดพยายามทจะน าเสนอสนคาใหมใน 2 ปทผานมาหรอไม (พ.ศ. 2557 – 2558)

1. ใช (ไปทขอ11.1)

0. ไม (ไปทขอ11.6)

ขอ 11.1. มการแนะน าสนคาใหม การปรบเปลยนบรรจภณฑ หรอ การปรบเปลยนการออกแบบรปแบบสนคาทมอย 1. ส าเรจ

2. ก าลงด าเนนการ

0. ยงไมไดท า

ขอ 11.2. มการแนะน าสนคาใหมโดยปรบปรงสนคาทมอยเดมอยางมาก โดยองตามความสามารถในการผลต, ความสะดวกในการใชผลตภณฑ, สวนประกอบของผลตภณฑ, ระบบโครงสรางยอยอน, และอนๆ

1. ส าเรจ 2. ก าลงด าเนนการ


ขอ 11.3. มการปรบปรงผลตภณฑใหมโดยสนเชง โดยใชเทคโนโลยทมอย 1. ส าเรจ 2. ก าลงด าเนนการ


ขอ 11.4. มการปรบปรงผลตภณฑใหมโดยสนเชง โดยใชเทคโนโลยใหม 1. ส าเรจ 2. ก าลงด าเนนการ


ขอ 11.5. สนคาใหมจะจดสงเขาตลาดไหน

1. ตลาดเดมทบรษทเคยท าอยกอนแลว 1. ใช 0. ไมใช

2. ตลาดใหมส าหรบบรษท 1. ใช 0. ไมใช

ขอ 11.6. บรษทไดลกคาใหมแบบไหนบาง (เลอกไดมากกวา 1 ขอ)

1.

ภายในประเทศ 2. บรษทตางชาต 100% (MNC)/บรษทรวมทนกบตางชาต

3. ไม

ขอ 12.กำรคมครองทรพยสนทำงปญญำของบรษททำน (โปรดเลอกค าตอบทตรงกบการด าเนนงานในบรษทของทานมากทสด)


48

ขอ 12.1. บรษทของทานมการคมครองทรพยสนทางปญญาหรอไม (สทธบตร, อนสทธบตร, เครองหมายการคา)


ขอ 12.2. บรษทของทานไดจดสทธบตรเพอคมครองทรพยสนทางปญญาภายใน 2 ปทผานมาหรอไม (พ.ศ. 2557 – 2558)


ขอ 12.3. บรษทของทานไดรบความเสยหายจากการละเมดลขสทธ/ทรพยสนทางปญญาหรอความลบทางการคารวไหลหรอไม


ขอ 13. ในป พ.ศ. 2557 และ พ.ศ. 2558 บรษทของทำนประสบควำมส ำเรจในดำนตอไปนหรอไม

ขอ 13.1. ลดการผลตสนคาทมต าหนในระหวางขนตอนการผลต 0. ไมม 1. เลกนอย 2. มบาง 3. มาก

ขอ 13.2. ลดการใชแรงงาน (จ านวนชวโมง-คนงาน) 0. ไมม 1. เลกนอย

2. มบาง 3. มาก

ขอ 13.3. ลดระยะเวลาการน าเสนอสนคาใหม (Lead

Time) 0. ไมม

1. เลกนอย


ขอ 13.4. ลดปญหาการหยดในสายการผลตทไมไดวางแผนไว 0. ไมม 1. เลกนอย


ขอ 13.5. ลดการเกดการบาดเจบในการท างาน 0. ไมม 1. เลกนอย


ขอ 13.6. ลดการเกดอบตเหตในโรงงานผลต 0. ไมม 1. เลกนอย


ขอ 13.7. ลดความลาชาในการจดสง 0. ไมม 1. เลกนอย


ขอ 13.8. ลดความแปรปรวนของคณภาพสนคา 0. ไมม 1. เลกนอย


ขอ 13.9. ลดระยะเวลาในการปรบเปลยนสายการผลต 0. ไมม 1. เลกนอย


ขอ 13.10. ลดการรองเรยน/เปลยนสนคาจากลกคา 0. ไมม 1. เลกนอย


ขอ 13.11. ลดตนทนการบ ารงรกษา 0. ไมม 1. เลกนอย


ขอ 14. บรษทของทำนไดรบมำตรฐำนสำกลตำมนหรอไม

ขอ 14.1. ประเภท ISO 9000 (ISO 9000/9001) 1. ใช 0. ยงไมไดรบ

ขอ 14.2. ประเภท ISO 14000 (ISO 14000/14001) 1. ใช 0. ยงไมไดรบ

ขอ 14.3. บรษทของทานตองการใหลกคา/ซพพลายเออรม

ISO ประเภทใด 1. ISO9000

2.

ISO14000 3. ทง 2 ประเภท

4. ไมตองการ

ขอ 15. กำรควบคมคณภำพ (QC)

ขอ 15.1. บรษทของทานมการน า 3ส หรอ 5ส (สะสาง สะดวก สะอาด สขลกษณะ สรางนสย) มาใช 1. ใช 0. ไมใช

ขอ 15.2. บรษทของทานมการด าเนนการดาน การควบคมคณภาพดวยกจกรรมกลม (QC Circle) 1. ใช 0. ไมใช ขอ 15.3. บรษทของทานมระบบหรอวธการปฏบตเพอเผยแพรความส าเรจของการควบคมคณภาพดวยกจกรรมกลม (QC Circle) ไปยงบรษทอน


ขอ 15.4. บรษทของทานมระบบหรอวธการปฏบตทจะเรยนรจากความส าเรจของการควบคมคณภาพดวยกจกรรมกลม (QC Circle) จากลกคาหรอซพพลายเออรของทาน


ขอ 15.5. บรษทของทานมระบบหรอวธการปฏบตทจะแบงปนความส าเรจของการควบคมคณภาพดวยกจกรรมกลม (QC Circle) ของบรษททานไปใหลกคาหรอซพพลายเออร 1. ใช 0. ไมใช

ขอ 15.6. บรษทของทานมระบบการรบฟงความคดเหนและขอแนะน าของพนกงานเพอการปรบปรงและพฒนา 1. ใช 0. ไมใช

ขอ 15.7. บรษทของทานมผลตอบแทนใหกบกลมพนกงานทใหความคดเหนและขอแนะน าเพอการปรบปรงและพฒนา (QC Circle Activities)


ขอ 15.8. บรษทของทานมการวดคณภาพเชงสถตของการควบคมคณภาพหรอไม 1. ใช 0. ไมใช ขอ 15.9. บรษทของทานไดมการน าวงจรการบรหารงานคณภาพ PDCA (Plan-do-check-act) มาใขส าหรบการควบคมคณภาพหรอไม 1. ใช 0. ไมใช


49

ขอ 16. บรษทของทานมการรกษาคณภาพการท างานภายใตสถานการณตางๆไดมากนอยเพยงไร หากเทยบกบบรษทคแขง (คะแนน 1 = แยลงมาก, 2 = แยลง, 3 = เทาเดม, 4 = ดขน, 5 = ดขนมาก) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

ขอ16.1. อปกรณ/เครองมอทจ าเปนไดรบการจดหมวดหม และแยกสงทจ าเปนถกแยกออกจากสงทไมจ าเปน

ขอ16.2. อปกรณ/เครองมอ ถกจดวางไวอยางเปนระบบ ระเบยบ และงายตอการใชงาน ทกคนสามารถหาเครองมอไดงายเมอตองการใชงาน

ขอ16.3. สถานทท างานมการท าความสะอาดอยเสมอ ทงกอนและหลงการท างาน

C: แหลงขอมลและนวตกรรมทชวยพฒนำและสรำงธรกจใหม ผลตภณฑใหม หรอน ำเสนอขนตอนกำรผลตหรอกำรบรหำรจดกำรองคกร

ขอ 17. กำรด ำเนนกำรทำงดำนวจยและพฒนำของบรษท (R&D) (โปรดเลอกค าตอบทตรงกบการด าเนนงานในบรษทของทานมากทสด)

ขอ 17.1. อตราสวนระหวางคาใชจายการวจยและพฒนาตอยอดขายในปจจบน

0. ไมม 1. นอยกวา 0.5%

2. 0.5 -0.99% 3. 1% ขนไป

ขอ 17.2. บรษทของทานไดเรมด าเนนกจกรรมดานการวจยและพฒนาตงแตป พ.ศ.ใด

0. ยงไมม 1. กอน พ.ศ.2533

2. พ.ศ.2533-

2537

3. พ.ศ.2538-2542

4. พ.ศ.2543-

2547

5. พ.ศ.2548-

2552

6. พ.ศ.2553-

2557

ขอ 17.3. บรษทมพนกงานในทมวจยและพฒนากคน

0. ไมม 1. 1-5 คน 2. 6-10

คน 3. 11-20 คน

4. 21-30

คน

5. 31-50

คน

6. 51-100

คน

7. 101 คนหรอมากกวา

ขอ 17.4. บรษทมการจดกจกรรมระหวางกลมวจยและพฒนาหรอไม 1. ม 0. ไมม

ขอ 17.5. ทมวจยและพฒนาของทานมการประชมเพอวเคราะหและแกปญหาตางๆทเกดขนหรอไม 1. ม 0. ไมม

ขอ 17.6. บรษทมแผนกวจยและพฒนาทมคามเชยวชาญดานวจยและพฒนาโดยเฉพาะหรอไม 1. ม 0. ไมม

ขอ 17.7. บรษทมการพฒนาบคลากรเพอควบคมดแลงานวจยและพฒนาหรอไม 1. ม 0. ไมม ขอ 18. กำรท ำงำนขำมสำยงำน (Cross-Functional Team) แผนกใดในบรษทของทำนมสวนรวมในกำรท ำงำนขำมสำยงำนเพอกำรน ำเสนอสนคำใหม (โปรดเลอกขอทตรงกบบรษทของทานและสามารถเลอกไดมากกวา 1 ค าตอบ)

1. ยงไมม 5. แผนกวศวกรรมการผลต 9. แผนกบญช 13. แผนกเทคโนโลยสารสนเทศ

2. แผนกวจยการตลาด 6. แผนกการผลต 10. แผนกทรพยากรบคคล 14. อนๆ

3. แผนกวจย 7. แผนกการควบคมคณภาพ

11. แผนกการขายและการตลาด

4. แผนกการพฒนา 8. แผนกจดซอ 12. แผนกโลจสตกส/การกระจายสนคา

ขอ 18.1. ทมกำรท ำงำนขำมสำยงำนของทำนตงอยทใด 1. ไมมทม 2. ส านกงานใหญ

3. โรงงาน

ขอ 19. ผจดกำรหรอพนกงำนของทำนในกำรท ำงำนขำมสำยงำน (Cross-Functional Team) มกำรรวมประชมเพอพดคยถงปญหำและกำรแกปญหำหรอไม ถำม จะมตวแทนจำกแผนกไหนรวมประชมบำง (โปรดเลอกขอทตรงกบบรษทของทานและสามารถเลอกไดมากกวา 1 ค าตอบ)

1. ไมมการประชม 5. แผนกวศวกรรมการผลต 9. แผนกบญช 13. แผนกเทคโนโลยสารสนเทศ

2. แผนกวจยการตลาด 6. แผนกการผลต 10. แผนกทรพยากรบคคล 14. อนๆ

3. แผนกวจย 7. แผนกการควบคมคณภาพ

11. แผนกการขายและการตลาด


50

4. แผนกการพฒนา 8. แผนกจดซอ 12. แผนกโลจสตกส/การกระจายสนคา

ขอ 20. ใครเปนผน ำเสนอไอเดยใหมๆในกำรท ำธรกจ ผลตภณฑ กำรบรกำร กำรผลต กำรตลำด และกำรบรหำร (โปรดเลอกขอทตรงกบบรษทของทาน)

0.

ไมมการน าเสนอ

1.

ธรกจใหม

2.

ผลตภณฑและการ

บรการใหม

3.

การผลตและขนตอนใหม

4.

การตลาดแบบใหม

5.

การบรหารองคกร

ขอ 20.1. ประธานบรษท, เจาของ (President, Owner)

ขอ 20.2. กรรมการบรหาร

ขอ 20.3. ผจดการ

ขอ 20.4. หวหนาสายการผลต

ขอ 20.5. นกวจยและพฒนา

ขอ 20.6. วศวกรการผลต

ขอ 20.7. พนกงานการตลาด

ขอ 20.8. พนกงาน

ขอ 20.9. ลกคา

ขอ 21. บรษทของทำนแลกเปลยนประสบกำรณควำมส ำเรจหรอลมเหลวในกำรท ำวจยและพฒนำหรอเกยวกบนวตกรรมอนๆในองคกรอยำงไร (โปรดเลอกขอทตรงกบบรษทของทาน)

0. ไม

มการปร

งปรงแล

ะสร

างสร

รคนว

ตกรรม

1. ไม

ส าคญ

2. ส าคญ

นอย

3. ส าคญ

ปานก

ลาง

4. ส าคญ

มาก

ขอ 21.1. การประชมเปนกลม

ขอ 21.2. การประชมกบผบรหาร

ขอ 21.3. การฝกปฏบตในงาน (On the job training)

ขอ 21.4. ใชการควบคมคณภาพ QC circles ส าหรบ R&D หรอกจกรรมเกยวกบนวตกรรมอนๆ

ขอ 21.5. ใชคมอ

ขอ 21.6. น าเสนอผานสอตางๆทบรษทเตรยมไว

ขอ 21.7. เอกสารเกยวกบการน าเสนอหรอขอรองเรยนจากลกคาหรอซพลายเออร

ขอ 21.8. การวาดแผนภาพหรอพมพเขยว

ขอ 21.9. ใชขอมลจาก CAD/CAM

ขอ 21.10. สออเลกทรอนกส, แลกเปลยนขอมล ความรทเกบในระบบฐานขอมล (Database)

ขอ 21.11. การแลกเปลยนขอมลระหวางพนกงานในชวงพกกลางวนหรอพกเบรค

ขอ 21.12. การแลกเปลยนขอมลระหวางพนกงานหลงเลกงาน

ขอ 21.13. การแลกเปลยนขอมลระหวางพนกงานโดยใช Facebook, twitter หรอสออนๆ

ขอ 22. ขอมลและเทคโนโลยสำรสนเทศเหลำนมควำมส ำคญแคไหนส ำหรบพนกงำนของทำนในกำรท ำวจยและพฒนำหรอท ำกจกรรมทเกยวกบนวตกรรม (โปรดเลอกขอทตรงกบบรษทของทาน)

0. ไม

มการปร

งปรงแล

ะสร

างสร

รคนว

ตกรรม

1. ไม

ส าคญ

2. ส าคญ

นอย

3. ส าคญ

ปานก

ลาง

4. ส าคญ

มาก

ขอ 22.1. ขอมลความตองการของลกคา

ขอ 22.2. ขอมลลกคาใหม


51

ขอ 22.3. ขอมลซพพลายเออรใหม

ขอ 22.4. ขอมลเทคโนโลยใหม

ขอ 22.5. ขอมลผลตภณฑและการบรการใหม

ขอ 22.6. ขอมลการผลตและขนตอนการผลตใหม

ขอ 23. ใครเปนผน ำรเรมกำรวจยและพฒนำหรอกจกกรมเกยวกบกำรสรำงนวตกรรมในบรษท ภำยใตกำรดแลของประธำนหรอเจำของบรษท (โปรดเลอกขอทตรงกบบรษทของทาน)

1. พน

กงาน

(Bo

tto

m-u

p)

2.

(So

mew

hat

bo

tto

m-u

p)

3. ผจ

ดการ

4.

(So

mew

hat

top

-do

wn

)

5. ผบ

รหาร

ระดบ

สง

ขอ 23.1. การพฒนาธรกจใหม

ขอ 23.2. การพฒนาผลตภณฑและการบรการใหม

ขอ 23.3. การพฒนาการผลตและขนตอนการผลตใหม

ขอ 23.4. การพฒนากลยทธทางการตลาดใหม

ขอ 23.5. การพฒนาการบรหารองคกรแบบใหม

ขอ 24. แหลงเงนทนหลกของทำนส ำหรบกำรปรบปรงผลตภณฑ / กำรปรบปรงกระบวนกำร (โปรดเลอกค าตอบทตรงกบการด าเนนงานในบรษทของทานมากทสด)

1. เงนออมของผบรหารระดบสง 2. ครอบครว 3. เพอน 4. ธนาคารพาณชย (เงนกทม

หลกประกน) 5. ธนาคารพาณชย(เงนกทไมม

หลกประกน) 6. ธนาคารของรฐบาล

(Public Bank) 7. สถาบนการเงนทไมใชธนาคาร

พาณชย 8. สถาบนการเงนเฉพาะทาง

(Local Authority) 9. ก าไรสะสม

10. บรษทแม บรษทในเครอ 11. ลกคา 12. ซพพลายเออร

13. บรษทการคาระหวางประเทศ 14. นกลงทนรายอสระ/นกลงทนรายบคคล

15. อนๆ โปรดระบ:

D: แหลงทมำของเทคโนโลยใหมและขอมลใหมทน ำมำใชในกำรยกระดบธรกจและกำรปฏรปธรกจ ขอ 25.บรษทของทำนแกปญหำทำงดำนเทคนคอยำงไรในกจกรรมกำรสรำงนวตกรรม (โปรดเลอกขอทตรงกบบรษทของทาน)

1. ใช 0. ไม

ขอ 25.1. ใหพนกงานศกษาเรยนรและแกปญหาดวยตนเอง

ขอ 25.2. ใหพนกงานเขาอบรมนอกบรษท

ขอ 25.3. จางพนกงานใหมทมความสามารถในการใชเทคโนโลยใหม

ขอ 25.4. สงค าขอไปยงบรษทแมเพอใหสงวศวกรหรอทปรกษามาทบรษทของทาน

ขอ 25.5. จางทปรกษา

ขอ 25.6. สอบถามความคดเหนและค าแนะน า หรอรวมมอกบลกคาในพนททเปนบรษทไทย 100%

ขอ 25.7. สอบถามความคดเหนและค าแนะน า หรอรวมมอกบซพพลายเออรในพนททเปนบรษทไทย 100%

ขอ 25.8. สอบถามความคดเหนและค าแนะน า หรอรวมมอกบลกคาทเปนบรษทขามชาตหรอบรษทรวมทน (MNC/JV)

ขอ 25.9. สอบถามความคดเหนและค าแนะน า หรอรวมมอกบซพพลายเออรทเปนบรษทขามชาตหรอบรษทรวมทน (MNC/JV)

ขอ 25.10. สอบถามความคดเหนและค าแนะน า หรอรวมมอกบซพพลายเออรทขายเครองจกรใหญหรออปกรณอตสาหกรรม

ขอ 25.11. สอบถามความคดเหนและค าแนะน า หรอรวมมอกบหนวยงานภาครฐ

ขอ 25.12. สอบถามความคดเหนและค าแนะน า หรอรวมมอกบหนวยงานธรกจภายในประเทศ

ขอ 25.13. สอบถามความคดเหนและค าแนะน า หรอรวมมอกบมหาวทยาลยและสถาบนการศกษา

ขอ 25.14. สอบถามความคดเหนและค าแนะน า หรอรวมมอกบหนวยงานวจยของภาครฐ

ขอ 25.15. ใชความรจากสทธบตรทจดในประเทศไทยหรอตางประเทศ


52

ขอ 26. บรษทของทานไดรบการบรการดงตอไปนภายใน 2 ปทผานมา (พ .ศ. 2557 – 2558) หรอไม

1.สถาบนวจยของภาครฐ

2.

มหาวทยาลย 0. ไมไดใช

ขอ 26.1. การใหบรการดานทปรกษาเฉพาะทาง

ขอ 26.2. การใหบรการหองปฏบตการและทดลอง

ขอ 26.3. การใหเชา/ยมเครองมอและอปกรณเพอการทดสอบและวจย

ขอ 26.4. การอบรมและสมมนาเกยวกบเทคนคเฉพาะทาง

ขอ 26.5. ขอมลเกยวกบมาตรฐานทางเทคนคของตางชาต ขอ 27. กำรตดตอและท ำงำนรวมกบวศวกรของบรษททรวมงำนกน (ลกคำ และ/หรอ ซพพลำยเออร) (โปรดเลอกเพยงค าตอบเดยวทตรงกบการด าเนนงานในบรษทของทานมากทสด)

ขอ 27.1. วศวกรจากบรษทของทานตดตอโดยตรงกบมการรบวศวกรจากบรษทของลกคาหรอไม 1.

ใช

0.

ไมใช

ขอ 27.2. วศวกรจากบรษทของทานตดตอโดยตรงกบมการรบวศวกรจากบรษทของซพพลายเออรหรอไม 1.

ใช

0.

ไมใช

ขอ 27.3. บรษทของทานมการประชมดานงานวจยกบบรษทอนๆดวยหรอไม 1.

ใช

0.

ไมใช E: กำรพฒนำกำรจดกำรทรพยำกรบคคล (HRD) ส ำหรบกำรยกระดบธรกจ (Upgrading) และนวตกรรม (Innovation) ขอ 28. ขอมลของผบรหำรสงสด(CEO)ของบรษทของทำน (โปรดเลอกค ำตอบทตรงกบกำรด ำเนนงำนในบรษทของทำนมำกทสด)

ขอ 28.1. สญชาตของผบรหารสงสด 1. ไทย 2. สญชาตอน (โปรดระบ: )

ขอ 28.2. อายของผบรหารสงสด(CEO)ของบรษทของทาน

1. 20-29

ป

2. 30-

39ป

3. 40-49

ป

4. 50-59

ป

5. 60-

69ป

6. มากกวา70ป

ขอ 28.3. ผบรหารสงสดจบการศกษาสงสดในระดบใด

1. ปรญญาตร 2. ปรญญาโท 3. ปรญญาเอก 4. อนๆ

ขอ 28.4. ผบรหารสงสดเปนวศวกรใชหรอไม


ขอ 28.5. ผบรหารสงสดในบรษทของทานเปนผกอตงใชหรอไม 1. เปนผกอตง 2. รบชวงตอของกจการใน

ครอบครว 3. ไมใช

ขอ 28.6. ผบรหารสงสดในบรษทของทานมประสบการณท างานในบรษทขามชาต (MNC) หรอบรษทรวมทน (Joint Venture)


ขอ 28.7.ผบรหารสงสดในบรษทของทานมประสบการณ/หรอเคยท างานในรฐวสาหกจ หรอบรษททเคยเปนรฐวสาหกจหรอไม


ขอ 29. ประวตของผจดกำรโรงงำนของบรษท

ขอ 29.1. บรษทของทานมผจดการโรงงาน (Factory Manager) หรอไม

1. ม (ขอ 29.2-ขอ 29.5)

0. No(ขอ 30)

ขอ 29.2. สญชาตของผจดการโรงงาน 1. ไทย 2. ตางประเทศ (โปรดระบ: )

ขอ 29.3. ผจดการโรงงานในบรษทของทานเปนผกอตงหรอเปนสมาชกของครอบครวผกอตงใชหรอไม 1. ใช 0. ไมใช

ขอ 29.4. ผจดการโรงงานในบรษทของทานมประสบการณท างานในบรษทขามชาตหรอบรษทรวมทน (Joint Venture)หรอไม


ขอ 29.5.ผจดการโรงงานในบรษทของทานมประสบการณ/หรอเคยท างานในรฐวสาหกจ หรอบรษททเคยเปนรฐวสาหกจ หรอไม



53

ขอ 30. บรษทของทานมโปรแกรมการพฒนาดานทรพยากรมนษยใหพนกงานโดยการฝกขามสายงาน (Cross-training) หรอหมนเวยนงาน (Job rotation) หรอไม 1. ใช

0. ไมใช

ขอ 31. บรษทของทานไดจางผเชยวชาญจากบรษทอนหรอไม 1. ใช 0. ไมใช

ขอ 32. บรษทของทานมการฝกพนกงานจนมความสามารถเพมขนและกลายเปนผเชยวชาญหรอได 1. ใช 0. ไมใช

F: ควำมรวมมอทำงธรกจกบลกคำหลกและซพพลำยเออรในปจจบน ขอ 33. โปรดระบขอมลของลกคำ/ซพพลำยเออรทมควำมส ำคญตอธรกจของทำน (โปรดเลอกค ำตอบทตรงกบกำรด ำเนนงำนในบรษทของทำนมำกทสด)

ลกคำรำยทส ำคญทสด (C) ซพพลำยเออรรำยทส ำคญทสด (S)

ขอ 33.1. ลกษณะโครงสรางเงนทนของลกคาหรอซพพลายเออรของบรษททาน

1. เจาของเปนคนไทย 100%

2. เจาของเปนตางชาต 100%

3. รวมทนกบตางชาต

1. เจาของเปนคนไทย 100%

2. เจาของเปนตางชาต 100%

3. รวมทนกบตางชาต

4. ภาครฐ 4. ภาครฐ ขอ 33.2. บรษทของทานมการลงทนรวมกบลกคาหรอ ซพพลายเออรหรอไม

1. มการลงทนรวมกน

0. ไมมการลงทนรวมกน

1. มการลงทนรวมกน

0. ไมมการลงทนรวมกน

ขอ 33.3. จ านวนพนกงานของบรษทลกคาหรอซพพลายเออร

1. ลกจาง 99 คนหรอนอยกวา 2. ลกจาง 100-199 คน

3. ลกจาง 200-299 คน

4. ลกจาง 300-999 คน

5. ลกจาง 1,000 คนหรอมากกวา

1. ลกจาง 99 คนหรอนอยกวา 2. ลกจาง 100-199 คน

3. ลกจาง 200-299 คน

4. ลกจาง 300-999 คน

5. ลกจาง 1,000 คนหรอมากกวา

ขอ 33.4. โปรดระบระยะทางจากบรษทของทานถงลกคาหรอซพพลายเออร (กโลเมตร)

1. 0-10

2. 11-25

3. 26-50

4. 51-

100

5. 101-

200 6. 201-300

7. 301-400

8. 401-500

9. 501-

1,000

10. 1,001-

2,000

11. 2,001

หรอ มากกวา

1. 0-10

2. 11-25

3. 26-50

4. 51-

100

5. 101-

200 6. 201-300

7. 301-400

8. 401-500

9. 501-

1,000

10. 1,001-

2,000

11. 2,001

หรอ มากกวา

ขอ 33.5. บรษทของทานตองการใหลกคาหรอซพพลายเออรไดรบการรบรองตามมาตรฐานระดบสากล (ISO 9000, ISO14000) หรอไม

1.

ISO9000 2. ISO14000

3. ทงสองแบบ

0. ไม

1.

ISO9000 2. ISO14000

3. ทงสองแบบ

0. ไม ขอ 33.6. บรษทของทานสงวศวกรไปท างานกบลกคาหรอซพพลายเออรหรอไม 1. ใช 0. ไมใช 1. ใช 0. ไมใช

ขอ 33.7. ลกคาหรอซพพลายเออร สงวศวกรมาบรษทของทานหรอไม 1. ใช 0. ไมใช 1. ใช 0. ไมใช

ขอ 33.8. บรษทของทานมค าแนะน าในการพฒนาผลตภณฑหรอกรควบคมการผลตของลกคาหรอซพพลายเออรทางดานไหนบาง (ตอบไดมากกวา 1 ขอ)

1. ดานผลตภณฑ 2. ดานการควบคมคณภาพ 3. ดานบรหารตนทน 4. ดานขนสงและสนคาคงคลง


ขอ 33.9. ลกคาหรอซพพลายเออรมค าแนะน าในการพฒนาผลตภณฑหรอกรควบคมการผลตใหบรษทของทานของทางดานไหนบาง (ตอบไดมากกวา 1 ขอ)



ขอ 33.10 บรษทของทานมการจดเตรยมการอบรมใหกบลกคาหรอซพพลายเออรหรอไม 1. ใช 0. ไมใช 1. ใช 0. ไมใช


54

ขอ 33.11 บรษทของทานไดรบการอบรมจากลกคาหรอซพพลายเออรหรอไม 1. ใช 0. ไมใช 1. ใช 0. ไมใช

ขอ 33.12. บรษทของทานมการออกแบบ ผลตภณฑใหมรวมกบลกคาหรอซพพลายเออรหรอไม

1. ใช 0. ไมใช 1. ใช 0. ไมใช

ขอ 33.13. ลกคาหรอซพพลายเออรมการด าเนนการดานงานวจยและพฒนา (R&D) หรอไม


ขอ 33.14. บรษทของทานมการจดประชมดานงานวจยและพฒนากบลกคาหรอซพพลายเออรหรอไม


ขอ 33.15. ลกคาหรอซพพลายเออรของทานมการสงออกสนคาหรอไม 1. ใช 0. ไมใช 1. ใช 0. ไมใช

ขอ 33.16. ลกคาหรอซพพลายเออรของทานมการน าเขาสนคาหรอไม 1. ใช 0. ไมใช 1. ใช 0. ไมใช

G. กำรกระจำยเชงภมศำสตรของสนคำและเครอขำยกำรกระจำยสนคำ *โปรดใชเลข ID ของประเทศตางๆ ดานลางเพอตอบค าถามขอ 34-36

ID ประเทศ/เขต ID ประเทศ/เขต ID ประเทศ/เขต

1. อนโดนเซย 8. มาเลเซย 15. เกาหลใต

2. ฟลปปนส 9. กมพชา 16. ไตหวน 3. ไทย 10. ลาว 17. อนเดย 4. เวยดนาม (ฮานอย) 11. พมา 18. ออสเตรเลย หรอนวซแลนด

5. เวยดนาม (โฮจมน) 12. จนแผนดนใหญ 19. สหรฐอเมรกา 6. เวยดนาม (เขตอน/ศนยกลาง) 13. ฮองกง 20. ยโรป

7. สงคโปร 14. ญป น 21. ประเทศอนๆ

ขอ 34. ลกคำหลก (จำกขอ 33) ของบรษททำนอยในประเทศหรอภมภำคใด (โปรดเลอกเพยงค าตอบเดยวทตรงกบบรษทของทานมากทสด)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

ขอ 35. ซพพลำยเออรหลก (จำกขอ 33) ของบรษททำนอยในประเทศหรอภมภำคใด (ทานสามารถเลอกเพยงค าตอบเดยวทตรงกบบรษทของทานมากทสด)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

ขอ 36. บรษทของทำนไดสรำงฐำนลกคำใหมใน 2 ปทผำนมำไดหรอไม (พ .ศ. 2557 – 2558) ถำใช โปรดระบประเทศหรอภมภำคของฐำนลกคำ

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.