Chapter 5: Research Methodology
5.3 Phase II: Mail Survey
5.3.3 The Survey Instruments for Phase II
5.3.3.1 Development of Questions for Structured Questionnaire for Phase II
The structured questionnaire mainly consisted of pre-coded quantitative questions mixed with a few open-ended questions. As mentioned previously, the questions were developed by the integration of various topics. However, the results attained from Phase I concerning the management perceptions of developing technological capability in the Thai automotive industry were also considered in order to refine the focus of the measurement instrument in Phase II.
In this study, the firm is regarded as a dynamic unit and by virtue of its nature, and it is subject to a process of transformation and changes. It can be born, grow or disappear in response to internal and external changes. The process of growth and the building of the technological capabilities of the firm are highly conditioned by the efforts of entrepreneurs as well as the systematic accumulation of knowledge and manpower skills. Therefore, basic characteristics of
95 the firm under study, including information concerning both pre- and post-production, should be taken into account before empirical analysis can be made (Questions 1 -6).
In this context, Part 1 of the structured questionnaire was constructed to uncover the background of the auto part firms (see Appendix II.I and Table 5.2). In this part, the measurement was limited to the characteristics of the auto part firms. The objective of the survey questionnaire was to find out:
- Background information on each firm (i.e. Question 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 15, and 16), - About support from the government or MNE (i.e., Question 2, 7, 8, and 9), and - About the industry and products of the firms (i.e., Question 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14).
Table 5.2 Measurement Items for Part 1 of the Survey Questionnaire
Subjects to be measured Question No. Sources
Part 1 (General background) Background information of each firm
1,3,4,5,6,15, and 16
1. Year of establishment Van Der Panne et al. (2003) 3. -Became vendor to assemblers
in_______________________ -Name of assembly
Voss (1985)
4. Status of respondent Stuart & Albetti (1987) Maidique & Zirger (1984)
5. Number of employees Van Der Panne et al. (2003) Stuart & Albetti (1987) Maidique & Zirger (1984) 6. Number of professionals in the
firm
Voss (1985)
Maidique & Zirger (1984) 15. Market orientation Van Der Panne et al. (2003)
96
Table 5.2 Measurement Items for Part 1 of the Survey Questionnaire (Continued)
Subjects to be measured Question No. Sources
The support from the government or MNE
2, 7, 8, and 9
2. Received promotion from the Board of Investment (BOI) in ________________________
Cooper & Kleinschmidt (1987)
Link (1987) 7. Have you obtained exclusive
contracts from the automobile industry?
Cooper & Kleinschmidt (1987)
Link (1987) 8. Have you obtained general
contracts to manufacture for other firms?
Cooper & Kleinschmidt (1987)
Link (1987) 9. What is the type of ownership
in your firm?
Van Der Panne et al. (2003) Voss (1985)
The industry and product of the firms
10, 11, 12, 13, and 14
10. Please state the distribution of equity ownership of the establishment
Bell and Pavitt (1995)
11. Please state your type of industry
Lall (1992), Bell & Pavitt (1995)
12. Please state your reasons for investing in your industry type
Lall (1992), Bell & Pavitt (1995)
13. Main products of your firm? Lall (1992) 14. Product technology type Lall (1992)
Part 1 of the questionnaire involved questions aimed at obtaining general information, i.e. the background of the firms, support from the government or MNE, and the industry and products of the firms.
Regarding the background information of each firm, the majority of the measures used to assess the general background in Question 1 were developed by adopting “firm related factors” as suggested by Van Der Panne et al. (2003). Van Der Panne et al.’s (2003) study, suggests “firm related factors” are one of the four categories included in a classification of
97 factors that affect the innovative project’s technological side. Subsequently, technological capability development might depend on the satisfaction of relevant factors concerning the firm’s background. Thus, Question 1 was constructed as an open-ended question to reveal the year of each company’s establishment, which represents the length of experience of the firm.
Question 3 investigated the name of the assemblers which the participant supplies auto parts to. This might connect to the supplier’s background and culture, as suggested by Voss (1985) and Van Der Panne et al. (2003). These two scholars agree that the firm’s background might have an effect on the development of technological capability. In this way, the previous question might also be validated and confirmed.
Similarly, Question 4 attempted to examine “the status of the respondent” which might reflect the organisation and the embeddedness of the R&D team in the firm, as pointed out by Maidique & Zirger (1984), Van Der Panne et al. (2003), and Stuart & Albetti (1987). This question was measured through the selection from four choices.
The rationale for developing Questions 5 and 6 was the same as Question 4 because they all aimed at measuring the organisational team. Question 15, on the contrary, was developed to measure “market orientation” in the region that the business was located. Van Der Panne et al. (2003) proposed that “market related factors” directly affect technological capability development. This question was developed, then, in order to see whether this factor also has an influence on the technological capability development in the Thai context.
Question 16 tried to investigate the intensity of company problems. This question was adopted from previous literatures, such as Van Der Panne et al. (2003), suggesting that the intensity of problems might link to the management style, mainly. This question was measured through five-point ordinal scales ranging from not applicable to very difficult.
To obtain background information about the support from the government or MNE, Questions 2, 7, 8, and 9 were developed in Part 1. Question 2 uncovered the company’s experience with technology in the investing support from government departments, adopted from previous studies (Cooper & Kleinschmidt, 1987; Link, 1987).
98 Similarly, Question 7 and Question 8 attempted to examine the experience/skill of the company in general and in terms of technology. These questions measured the subject’s experience in this field based on the lists of innovation success factors of Cooper & Kleinschmidt (1987) and Link (1987). Question 7 was constructed to see whether the subject had obtained exclusive contracts from the automobile industry, while Question 8 was developed to find out if the subjects had obtained general contracts to manufacture for other firms.
Question 9 measured the firm’s background by asking about types of ownership in the subject’s firm. The question statement included in Question 9 was selected because the types of company might be a factor affecting technological capability development. The relationship between firm-related factors and technological viability has been confirmed in many studies (e.g.Van Der Panne et al., 2003; Voss, 1985).
With regard to background information about the industry and products of the firms, Questions 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 were constructed by adopting the Technology Capability Matrix (modified from Lall, 1992; Bell & Pavitt, 1995; see Table 3.1). Question 10 aimed at investigating the distribution of the equity ownership of the establishment. Bell and Pavitt (1995) suggested that the basic or simple technology capability level involves the firm’s ability to carry out minimal alterations to production and to integrate technology with its environment. Linkage among international firms might have an influence on technology transfer. Thus, the percentage of equity ownership of the firm’s establishment needed to be known.
Question 11 and Question 12 were developed to establish the types of firms being dealt with and the reasons for their investment in particular areas. The Technology Capability Matrix (modified from Lall, 1992; Bell & Pavitt, 1995) proved that investment is one of the key factors in improving technological capability. It can be seen that the simple technological capability levels includes construction of a plan, standard procurement, ancillary services, and hiring labour. Both questions might be useful to elicit information on this.
Questions 13 and 14 aimed to examine production which Lall (1992) suggested was a factor in the development of technological capability. The intermediate or adaptive technological capability level, for example, includes the firms’ ability to produce product designs, carry out production processes, and control product quality. This leads to the Question 13 which investigates the main products of the firm and Question 14 which asks for information about product technology types.
99 Part 2 of the structured questionnaire relates to government policies. In this regard, the findings of the first phase of the study influenced the questionnaire questions for Phase II. Table 5.3 below illustrates how the key areas addressed in Phase I influenced the development of questions for Phase II.
Table 5.3 Issues Addressed by Phase I that Influenced Questions (Part 2) for Phase II
Key Areas Addressed by Phase I Gaps in Key Area Addressed by Phase I
Phase II Question statements & Question Number
Government addresses policy but doesn’t truly support the industry. Very difficult to bring the
issues into Cabinet meetings.
Important policies in recent years
17. Have you been satisfied with recent government policy in the auto industry in the past five years?
The Local Content
Restriction policy helped in transferring technology in the past.
Other regulation policies 18. Please state government regulations that caused you concern?
Excise tax rates should not be changed for five years.
Other tax policies 19. Please state government taxes that caused you concern?
Companies hope to receive tax deduction for research and design expenses.
Other incentive policies 20. Please state government incentives that support your firm?
Lack of national car programme (only “international car base programme”).
Government policies that have been recognised by firm
21. Have government policies helped to promote the
technological capability development of your firm?
Although the questions in Part 2 were influenced by Phase I results, there was also support from previous studies. Rath (1990) and Westphal (2002), for example, state that existing government trade policy and regulations affect the outcome of technological capability development activities.
Taking into consideration the Phase 1 results, Questions 17 to 21 were developed. Question 17 was prepared to identify the importance of recent government policies in the automotive
100 industry. Question 18 aimed at understanding the problem of government regulations. Question 19 investigated the problems of taxation. And Questions 20 and 21 aimed at achieving an understanding of how government policies helped developing technological capabilities within the firm.
Lastly, Part 3 of the structured questionnaire examined the technological capabilities of the auto part firms in detail. Questions 22, 23 and 24 uncovered the source of technology. Question 25 measured the technological process. Questions 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 measured the level of technological capability in the auto part firms.
Table 5.4 Measurement Items for Part III of the Survey Questionnaire
Subjects to be measured Question No. Sources
Source of technology 22. Please state where you acquire component parts.
Rath (1990), Teitel (1984), Westphal (2002)
23. How did your firm acquire its technology?
Rath (1990), Teitel (1984), Westphal (2002)
24. How did you identify sources of technology?
Rath (1990), Teitel (1984), Westphal (2002)
Technological process 25. Does your firm need foreign technicians or expert assistance?
Rath (1990), Teitel (1984), Westphal (2002)
Level of technological capabilities 26. Does your firm have any R&D activities?
Lall (1992), Bell & Pavitt (1995)
27. Has your firm modified production or products?
Lall (1992), Bell & Pavitt (1995)
28. Please explain what technological capabilities have changed over the last five years.
Lall (1992), Bell & Pavitt (1995)
29. Please explain any problems you have had in developing R&D in your firm.
Lall (1992), Bell & Pavitt (1995)
30. Have you considered
investing in research and design?
Lall (1992), Bell & Pavitt (1995)
Table 5.4 presented three subjects that were measured in Part 3’s questions. Questions 22, 23 and 24 were aimed at uncovering sources of technology and were adopted from studies by Rath (1990), Teitel (1984), and Westphal (2002) which suggested that the source of a technology and the need to develop new skills or information in order to start its production
101 have an effect on the development of technological capability. In order to investigate this factor further, questions 22 and 23 aimed to investigate the source countries for component parts, and the methods of acquiring technology. Question 24 then explored how the subjects identify sources of technology.
Question 25 attempted to measure the technological process by developing the question “Does your firm need foreign technicians or expert assistance?” Studies by Rath (1990), Teitel (1984), and Westphal (2002) influenced the construction of this question, as they point to the fact that the constant influx of new and better technology influences a firm’s inclination to invest further in technological capability development. This implies that technology transferred from developed countries might be a factor in technological capability development.
Questions 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 assessed technological capability levels in auto part firms. The levels of technological capability development were derived from the differences between the kinds of knowledge and skills required to manage a specific technology [Bell & Pavitt, 1993, cited in Kale (2005)]. These questions were constructed according to the Technology Capability Matrix (see Table 3.1) and suggest that the levels of R&D in auto part firms are a factor in technological capability development. For instance, the advanced or innovative technological capability level in the matrix must include investment in research and design. Question 26 was then constructed to get information on a firm’s R&D activities.
Question 27 aimed to investigate the issue of product improvement in technological capability development levels by asking whether the firm had modified its production or its product. The idea was adopted from Lall (1992) and Bell & Pavitt (1995) who suggested that the intermediate technological capability development level is related to the firm’s ability in product design, product quality improvement, and licensing new product technology.
Question 28 was developed to examine the linkage in technological capability development levels. Lall (1992) and Bell & Pavitt (1995) also proposed that the intermediate technological capability level might involve the firm’s ability to absorb technology transfer from assemblers, and also relate to the firm’s turnkey capability, and licensing of technology from others. In other words, the firm’s technology transfer activities affect its technological
102 capability development. Thus, Question 28 asks the subjects to explain what technological capabilities in the firm have changed over the last five years.
Questions 29 and 30 concerned R&D investment at each level of technological capability. The issues addressed in the Technological Capability Matrix (modified from Lall, 1992 and Bell & Pavitt, 1995) again influenced the construct of the questions. For example, a firm’s technological capability development can reach the advanced level if the firm has the ability to invest in research and design. Question 29 therefore tries to bring to light problems that the subjects may have had in developing R&D. Question 30 then asks further if the subjects have considered investing in research and design, and if so, what happened?
5.3.3.2 Validation Process of the Phase II Instrument with the Item-Objective