Table II Summary of measurement scales...

Table II

Summary of measurement scales

Measurement	FL*	CR	AVE
Innovativeness (semantic differential 1-7):		0.85	0.66
In general, the top management of my firm favor …
A strong emphasis on the marketing of tried and true components vs a strong emphasis on R&D, technological leadership and innovations	0.82
How many new components have your firm marketed in the past five years?
No new component vs very many new components	0.80
Changes in components have been mostly minor vs changes in components have usually been quite dramatic	0.79
Proactiveness (semantic differential 1-7)		0.82	0.61
In dealing with its competitors, my firm …
Typically responds to actions, which competitors initiate vs typically initiates actions, which competitors then respond to	0.83
Is very seldom the first business to introduce new components, administrative techniques, operating technologies, etc vs is very often the first business to introduce new components, administrative techniques, operating technologies, etc	0.90
Typically seeks to avoid competitive clashes, preferring a “live-and-let-live” posture vs typically adopts very competitive, “undo-the-competitors” posture	0.58
Risk-taking (semantic differential 1-7)		0.90	0.75
In general, the top managers of my firm have …
A strong proclivity for low-risk projects (with normal and certain rates or return) vs a strong proclivity for high-risk projects (with chances of very high returns)	0.87
In general, top managers of my firm believe that …
Owing to the nature of the environment, it is best to explore it gradually via timid, incremental behavior vs owing to the nature of the environment, bold, wide-ranging acts are necessary to achieve the firm’s objectives	0.84
When confirmed with decision-making situations involving uncertainty, my firm …
Typically adopts a cautious, “wait-and-see” posture to minimize the probability of making costly decisions vs typically adopts a bold, aggressive posture to maximize the probability of exploiting potential opportunities	0.89
IC FDA (Likert 1-7)		0.92	0.79
Compared to competing components, the component of interest enhances end-customer experience regarding the objective performance of the end product	0.90
Compared to competing components, the component of interest better captures the design and engineering synergies with the business customer’s product	0.86
End customers experience better objective performance when using the business customer’s product because of the component of interest	0.90
IC reputational differentiation ability (Likert 1-7)		0.96	0.90
Our brand image would help differentiate the business customer’s product relative to his competitors	0.92
The business customer’s product would become more attractive to end customers as a result of linking the end product to our brand	0.97
The end product’s favorability among end customers would improve as a result of associating the end product with our brand name	0.96
Supplier’s DV (Likert 1-7)		0.92	0.80
Top management is willing to implement a component branding strategy during the next three years	0.90
We have the ability to implement a component branding strategy within the next three years	0.87
Based on our relationship with the business customer, we are optimistic about implementing a component branding strategy within three years	0.93

Measurement	FL*	CR	AVE
Innovativeness (semantic differential 1-7):		0.85	0.66
In general, the top management of my firm favor …
A strong emphasis on the marketing of tried and true components vs a strong emphasis on R&D, technological leadership and innovations	0.82
How many new components have your firm marketed in the past five years?
No new component vs very many new components	0.80
Changes in components have been mostly minor vs changes in components have usually been quite dramatic	0.79
Proactiveness (semantic differential 1-7)		0.82	0.61
In dealing with its competitors, my firm …
Typically responds to actions, which competitors initiate vs typically initiates actions, which competitors then respond to	0.83
Is very seldom the first business to introduce new components, administrative techniques, operating technologies, etc vs is very often the first business to introduce new components, administrative techniques, operating technologies, etc	0.90
Typically seeks to avoid competitive clashes, preferring a “live-and-let-live” posture vs typically adopts very competitive, “undo-the-competitors” posture	0.58
Risk-taking (semantic differential 1-7)		0.90	0.75
In general, the top managers of my firm have …
A strong proclivity for low-risk projects (with normal and certain rates or return) vs a strong proclivity for high-risk projects (with chances of very high returns)	0.87
In general, top managers of my firm believe that …
Owing to the nature of the environment, it is best to explore it gradually via timid, incremental behavior vs owing to the nature of the environment, bold, wide-ranging acts are necessary to achieve the firm’s objectives	0.84
When confirmed with decision-making situations involving uncertainty, my firm …
Typically adopts a cautious, “wait-and-see” posture to minimize the probability of making costly decisions vs typically adopts a bold, aggressive posture to maximize the probability of exploiting potential opportunities	0.89
IC FDA (Likert 1-7)		0.92	0.79
Compared to competing components, the component of interest enhances end-customer experience regarding the objective performance of the end product	0.90
Compared to competing components, the component of interest better captures the design and engineering synergies with the business customer’s product	0.86
End customers experience better objective performance when using the business customer’s product because of the component of interest	0.90
IC reputational differentiation ability (Likert 1-7)		0.96	0.90
Our brand image would help differentiate the business customer’s product relative to his competitors	0.92
The business customer’s product would become more attractive to end customers as a result of linking the end product to our brand	0.97
The end product’s favorability among end customers would improve as a result of associating the end product with our brand name	0.96
Supplier’s DV (Likert 1-7)		0.92	0.80
Top management is willing to implement a component branding strategy during the next three years	0.90
We have the ability to implement a component branding strategy within the next three years	0.87
Based on our relationship with the business customer, we are optimistic about implementing a component branding strategy within three years	0.93

Note:

*Factor loadings are standardized

[ViewLarge]

Sharing Unavailable