Survey Instrument

The survey instrument is developed with questions derived from the literature on emerging information technologies, Porter’s competitive strategies, resource → strategy → performance framework, and supply chain performance discussed above. We operationalize the study variables using multi-item reflective measures on a seven-point scale (Jarvis et al. 2003).

Table 1 summarizes the independent and dependent variables, which are further elaborated below.

Table 1 Research variables

Construct Operational Definition Supporting Literature

Emerging information technology

A firm’s intention to adopt the emerging information technology

Armbrust et al. (2010); Cegielski et al. (2012)

Cost leadership

A firm’s posture of competition based on lower cost of operation and resource relative to the firm’s competitors.

Koo et al. (2004) Reimann et al. (2009) Oltra and Luisa Flor (2010)

Differentiation

A firm’s ability to compete by being unique within their industry in a number of perspectives.

Koo et al. (2004) Reimann et al. (2009)

Focus

A firm’s ability to compete by targeting specific groups of buyers, product lines, product lifecycle, or geographic areas.

Koo et al. (2004) Kim et al. (2004)

Supply chain performance

A firm’s assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of its supply chain.

Wu et al. (2006) Vijayasarathy (2010) DeGroote and Marx (2013) Qrunfleh and Tarafdar (2014)

17

(1) The “Emerging information technology” construct

Emerging information technology is measured with five items that reflected the firm’s intention to adopt the technologies. These items are based on technology forecast reports of famous market research institutions and academic literature. Global market research firms such as Gartner (2014, 2015) and IDC (2014, 2015) publish top technology trend predictions annually. Academic society such as the IEEE Computer Society also announces annual top 10 technology trends (IEEE, 2014, 2015). Following the structure of the “new technology stack” depicted in Porter and Heppelmann (2014), this study will focus on the emerging information technology items in the technology stack.

We choose to measure intention rather than actual adoption of the technology due to the relative newness of the emerging information technology as a business tool. In the literature, there is extensive support for the notion that measuring intention, when placed in context with respect to time, is an accurate proxy for action (Cegielski et al., 2012).

(2) The “Cost leadership” construct

The cost leadership construct is measured with three items that reflect the extent to which a firm deploys a cost oriented strategy. First of all, cost leadership means the generation of higher margins than competitors by achieving lower operation costs. Firms with a cost leadership strategy often have highly stable product lines and a strong emphasis on profit and budget controls (Miller, 1988). Secondly, cost leadership is often reflected in the price competitiveness (Koo et al., 2004). The third item is the economic scale. A firm can gain a cost advantage with economies of scale or superior manufacturing processes (Porter, 1980, 1985). Generally, larger firms with greater access to resources are more likely to take advantage of cost leadership strategies, whereas smaller firms are often forced to compete with highly differentiated products and services in a niche market (Wright, 1987).

18

(3) The “Differentiation” construct

The differentiation construct is measured with four items that reflect the extent to which a firm deploys a differentiation strategy.

First of all, differentiation entails being unlike or distinct from competitors, e.g., by providing superior information, prices, distribution channels, and prestige to the customer (Porter, 1980). Differentiation prevents a business from competitive rivalry, insulating it from competitive forces that reduce margins (Phillips et al. 1983).

Extending Porter’s competitive strategy framework, Miller distinguished differentiation strategies based on innovation from those based on operational and marketing efficiency (Miller, 1988; Wright, 1987). These form the two items included in the construct.

Differentiation strategies based on innovation can create a dynamic market environment in which it is hard for competitors and customers to predict and react. This unpredictability could give the innovator a substantial advantage over its competitors (Miller, 1987). We further distinguish innovation as new markets and new business models. Differentiation strategies based on innovation can create a dynamic market environment or a distinct business model in which it is hard for competitors and customers to predict and react. This unpredictability could give the innovator a substantial advantage over its competitors (Miller, 1987).

(4) The “Focus” construct

We base our measure of the focus construct on the research construct of Koo et al. (2004), and Laosirihongthong et al. (2010).

A firm may obtain a strategic advantage by choosing to become specialized and focus on a niche market instead of competing broadly in the whole market. The choice of market segment for focusing can be based on dimensions such as prices, customer groups, product functions and geographical locations. Isoherranen (2011) evaluate the characteristics of technology orientation,

19

market orientation, customer focus and product focus in the case business. We measure the focus construct with four items which reflect four different market and product segmentations

(5) The “Supply chain performance” construct

Supply chain performance served as the dependent variable and is measured by seven items.

Respondents will be asked to rate their supply chain performance over the past few years relative to their competitors on a seven-point scale.

Beamon (1999) proposed a framework for measuring supply chain performance. The framework included the measurement of resources, output and flexibility as the strategic goals of SCM. The key measuring variables include cost, activity time, customer responsiveness and flexibility. Neely et al. (1995) discuss design issues in supply chain performance measurement systems. The metrics and measures are also discussed in the context of supply chain activities/processes such as plan, source, make/assemble, and delivery/customer (Gunasekaran et al., 2001; Gunasekaran et al., 2004).

This study will focus specifically on supply chain effectiveness (the achievement of specific objectives) and efficiency (the means by which specific objectives were attained), which have been recognized as direct and observable goals of SCM practice. Firms in a supply chain achieve operational efficiency and effectiveness by lowering costs, reducing inventory, promoting flexibility, ensuring on-time deliveries, and minimizing shortage of critical resources. These objectives relate to both parties in a buyer–supplier relationship, and therefore, can determine the performance of the overall supply chain.

Table 2 presents the items used to measure each of the independent and dependent variables.

Table 2 Items used in the survey

Variable Item

Intention of emerging information technology adoption (1 – to no extent; 4 – to some extent; 7 – to a great extent)

EIT1: IoT cloud

20

EIT2: IoT sensing

EIT3: IoT big data analytics EIT4: IoT user interface EIT5: IoT mobile app

EIT6: IoT security and privacy Cost Leadership strategy orientation

(1 – strongly disagree; 7 – strongly agree)

CL1: Developing products or services with lower cost

CL2: Delivering products or services with lower price

CL3: Providing products or services in large quantity or scale

Differentiation strategy orientation

(1 – strongly disagree; 7 – strongly agree)

DF1: Differentiating products and services based on operational efficiency

DF2: Differentiating products and services based on innovation

DF3: Delivering products or services with superior functionality in current market

DF4: Delivering products or services with innovative business model

Focus strategy orientation

(1 – strongly disagree; 7 – strongly agree)

MF1: Focusing in a niche market segment MF2: Focusing in first to market position MF3: Focusing in market position as a fast

follower

MF4: Focusing in a mature market segment Supply Chain Performance

(1 – greatly below average; 4 – average; 7 – greatly above average)

21

SCP1: Delivering products or services on time SCP2: Reducing lead time

SCP3: Responding to changes of customer requirement

SCP4: Avoiding lack of critical resources SCP5: Inventory and logistics flexibility

SCP6: Reducing cost of the whole supply chain management

SCP7: Reducing inventory cost