Post on 05-Apr-2022
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
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
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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.
.
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
vii
List of Figure
Figure Page
3.1 Conceptual Model 13
5.1 Firm Location 22
5.2 Type of Industry 22
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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.
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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).
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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.
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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.
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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.
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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).
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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.
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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.
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
13
3.2 Conceptual Model
Figure 3.1 Conceptual Model
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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.
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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
Question Scale Abbreviation
Does your establishment hold an intellectual
property right (patent, utility, model, trade
mark)?
Yes - No
C5
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
16
Table 4.3 Measure of Knowledge Management
Question Scale Abbreviation
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
Question Scale Abbreviation
Does you have research meeting with main
customer/supplier?
Yes - No C18
Table 4.5 Measure of Innovation
Question Scale Abbreviation
Does you have ideas of new business, product,
service, process, market, managerial
organization?
Yes - No C19
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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.
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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
Knowledge management 4 3.72 1.42 3.80 0.08 -0.94 -0.45
Knowledge management 5 3.35 1.35 3.39 0.04 -0.53 -0.89
Knowledge management 6 3.26 1.39 3.29 0.03 -0.35 -1.12
Knowledge management 7 3.45 1.42 3.76 0.01 -0.86 -0.58
Knowledge management 8 2.98 1.35 2.98 0.01 -0.27 -1.25
Knowledge management 9 2.97 1.45 2.96 0.14 -0.17 -1.39
Knowledge management 10 3.63 1.32 3.68 0.15 -0.70 -0.45
Knowledge management 11 3.19 1.22 3.21 0.12 -0.31 -0.71
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
19
Table 4.7 Data Screening (cont.)
Item Mean S.D. 5% trimmed mean ∆5% trimmed mean Skewness Kurtosis
Knowledge management 12 3.20 1.25 3.21 0.31 -0.21 -0.72
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
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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.
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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).
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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).
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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)
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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.
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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.
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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.
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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.
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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.
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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.
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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.
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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 5. Substantial
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 5. Substantial
decrease
Q10.5. Labor
productivity 1. Substantial
Increase 2.
increase
3. almost
same
4.
decrease 5. Substantial
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.
1. Achieved 2. Tried 0. not tried yet
Q11.3. Development of a totally new product based on the “existing” technologies for your establishment
1. Achieved 2. Tried 0. not tried yet
Q11.4. Development of a totally new product based on “new” technologies for your establishment
1. Achieved 2. Tried 0. not tried yet
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
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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
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)
1. Product 2. Quality control 3. Cost control 4. Delivery, inventory control
1. Product 2. Quality control 3. Cost control 4. Delivery, inventory control
Q33.10. Do you provide any training to the main customer/supplier?
1. Yes 0. No 1. Yes 0. No
Q33.11. Do you receive any training from the main customer/supplier?
1. Yes 0. No 1. Yes 0. No
Q33.12. Do you design a new product or service with the main customer/supplier?
1. Yes 0. No 1. Yes 0. No
Q33.13. Does the main customer/supplier conduct R&D?
1. Yes 0. No 1. Yes 0. No
Q33.14. Does you have research meetings with the main customer/supplier?
1. Yes 0. No 1. Yes 0. No
Q33.15. Does the main customer/supplier export?
1. Yes 0. No 1. Yes 0. No
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
44
Q33.16. Does the main customer/supplier import?
1. Yes 0. No 1. Yes 0. No
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.
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
45
Appendix B
Questionnaire Survey (Thai version)
แบบส ำรวจ ERIA (2015-2016) ในพนท (ประเทศไทย)
โปรดระบบคคลทสำมำรถตดตอได
กรณำกรอกขอมลกำรตดตอ ชอบรษท
ทอย
ชอผกรอกแบบสอบถาม ต าแหนง
โทรศพท อเมลล
เวบไซต
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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
0. ยงไมไดท า
ขอ 11.3. มการปรบปรงผลตภณฑใหมโดยสนเชง โดยใชเทคโนโลยทมอย 1. ส าเรจ 2. ก าลงด าเนนการ
0. ยงไมไดท า
ขอ 11.4. มการปรบปรงผลตภณฑใหมโดยสนเชง โดยใชเทคโนโลยใหม 1. ส าเรจ 2. ก าลงด าเนนการ
0. ยงไมไดท า
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)
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
48
ขอ 12.1. บรษทของทานมการคมครองทรพยสนทางปญญาหรอไม (สทธบตร, อนสทธบตร, เครองหมายการคา)
1. ใช 0. ไมใช
ขอ 12.2. บรษทของทานไดจดสทธบตรเพอคมครองทรพยสนทางปญญาภายใน 2 ปทผานมาหรอไม (พ.ศ. 2557 – 2558)
1. ใช 0. ไมใช
ขอ 12.3. บรษทของทานไดรบความเสยหายจากการละเมดลขสทธ/ทรพยสนทางปญญาหรอความลบทางการคารวไหลหรอไม
1. ใช 0. ไมใช
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
2. มบาง 3. มาก
ขอ 13.4. ลดปญหาการหยดในสายการผลตทไมไดวางแผนไว 0. ไมม 1. เลกนอย
2. มบาง 3. มาก
ขอ 13.5. ลดการเกดการบาดเจบในการท างาน 0. ไมม 1. เลกนอย
2. มบาง 3. มาก
ขอ 13.6. ลดการเกดอบตเหตในโรงงานผลต 0. ไมม 1. เลกนอย
2. มบาง 3. มาก
ขอ 13.7. ลดความลาชาในการจดสง 0. ไมม 1. เลกนอย
2. มบาง 3. มาก
ขอ 13.8. ลดความแปรปรวนของคณภาพสนคา 0. ไมม 1. เลกนอย
2. มบาง 3. มาก
ขอ 13.9. ลดระยะเวลาในการปรบเปลยนสายการผลต 0. ไมม 1. เลกนอย
2. มบาง 3. มาก
ขอ 13.10. ลดการรองเรยน/เปลยนสนคาจากลกคา 0. ไมม 1. เลกนอย
2. มบาง 3. มาก
ขอ 13.11. ลดตนทนการบ ารงรกษา 0. ไมม 1. เลกนอย
2. มบาง 3. มาก
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
1. ใช 0. ไมใช
ขอ 15.4. บรษทของทานมระบบหรอวธการปฏบตทจะเรยนรจากความส าเรจของการควบคมคณภาพดวยกจกรรมกลม (QC Circle) จากลกคาหรอซพพลายเออรของทาน
1. ใช 0. ไมใช
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)
1. ใช 0. ไมใช
ขอ 15.8. บรษทของทานมการวดคณภาพเชงสถตของการควบคมคณภาพหรอไม 1. ใช 0. ไมใช ขอ 15.9. บรษทของทานไดมการน าวงจรการบรหารงานคณภาพ PDCA (Plan-do-check-act) มาใขส าหรบการควบคมคณภาพหรอไม 1. ใช 0. ไมใช
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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
1. ใช 0. ไมใช
ขอ 28.5. ผบรหารสงสดในบรษทของทานเปนผกอตงใชหรอไม 1. เปนผกอตง 2. รบชวงตอของกจการใน
ครอบครว 3. ไมใช
ขอ 28.6. ผบรหารสงสดในบรษทของทานมประสบการณท างานในบรษทขามชาต (MNC) หรอบรษทรวมทน (Joint Venture)
1. ใช 0. ไมใช
ขอ 28.7.ผบรหารสงสดในบรษทของทานมประสบการณ/หรอเคยท างานในรฐวสาหกจ หรอบรษททเคยเปนรฐวสาหกจหรอไม
1. ใช 0. ไมใช
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
1. ใช 0. ไมใช
ขอ 29.5.ผจดการโรงงานในบรษทของทานมประสบการณ/หรอเคยท างานในรฐวสาหกจ หรอบรษททเคยเปนรฐวสาหกจ หรอไม
1. ใช 0. ไมใช
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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
1. ดานผลตภณฑ 2. ดานการควบคมคณภาพ 3. ดานบรหารตนทน 4. ดานขนสงและสนคาคงคลง
ขอ 33.9. ลกคาหรอซพพลายเออรมค าแนะน าในการพฒนาผลตภณฑหรอกรควบคมการผลตใหบรษทของทานของทางดานไหนบาง (ตอบไดมากกวา 1 ขอ)
1. ดานผลตภณฑ 2. ดานการควบคมคณภาพ 3. ดานบรหารตนทน 4. ดานขนสงและสนคาคงคลง
1. ดานผลตภณฑ 2. ดานการควบคมคณภาพ 3. ดานบรหารตนทน 4. ดานขนสงและสนคาคงคลง
ขอ 33.10 บรษทของทานมการจดเตรยมการอบรมใหกบลกคาหรอซพพลายเออรหรอไม 1. ใช 0. ไมใช 1. ใช 0. ไมใช
Ref. code: 25595822042122UGARef. code: 25595822042122UGA
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
1. ใช 0. ไมใช 1. ใช 0. ไมใช
ขอ 33.14. บรษทของทานมการจดประชมดานงานวจยและพฒนากบลกคาหรอซพพลายเออรหรอไม
1. ใช 0. ไมใช 1. ใช 0. ไมใช
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.