Post on 09-May-2018
370
Effect of Entrepreneurial Marketing Capabilities Innovation and
Business Strategy toward Competitive Advantage of Small and
Medium Enterprises in Northern Region of Thailand
Panida Sattayopat 1 Chaiyutha Lertpachin 2 and Suriyajarat Techatonmeansakurn 3 1 PhD Candidate Department of Management Sciences Lampang Rajabhat University
Thailand
2 Department of Management Sciences PhD program Lampang Rajabhat University
Thailand
3 Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences Lampang Rajabhat University Thailand
Abstract The purpose of research was to study the casual relationship among entrepreneurial
marketing capabilities innovation and business strategy which had effect toward
competitive advantage of small and medium enterprises in Northern region of Thailand It
was survey research with stratified sampling group of 465 small and medium enterprises from
8 provinces ie Chiangrai Chiangmai Nan Phayao Phrae Mai Hong Son Lampang
and Lamphun The data analysis was conducted with descriptive statistics to find percentage
average standard deviation and inferential statistics analysis with structural equation
model
The outcomes of structural equation model analysis revealed that entrepreneurial had the
most direct effect toward marketing capabilities and followed by entrepreneurial had direct
effect toward business strategy Lastly the entrepreneurial had direct effect toward
innovation The research study also revealed that entrepreneurial had indirect effect toward
competitive advantage through marketing capabilities innovation business strategy
Keywords Entrepreneurial Marketing capabilities Innovation Business Strategy
Competitive Advantage Small and Medium Enterprises
1 Introduction
The complexity of current business destined entrepreneurs to promptly adjust their
organization structure to cope with both internal and external environment which had effect
toward the SMEs business operations (Kuratko and Hodgetts 2004) In order for the business
to gain the competitive advantage they must continue organization development (Porter 1990)
It was essential for entrepreneurs to have operational excellence over their competitive rivals
or to rely on the agility in coping with the arisen competitive arena with their long term
strategy (Wingwon 2007 p 74)
Small and medium entrepreneurs had dispersed throughout the country and contributed
value-added resources in economic system through the production or processing products and
service including the revenue generating from exporting cargoes that in turn yielded
371
substantial foreign currency each year It was also enhancing experience of entrepreneurs
(Boone and Kurtz 2010) in producing numerous products and in preventing monopoly in such
industry since competition would integrating among enterprises of all sizes within domestic
and international marketing which in turn would generated economic flow at macro level
(Sertvanich 2005 p 2)
By year 2010 the number of enterprises in Thailand had climbed to 2924910 representing
9960 percents of total enterprises of all types creating the work employment of 10507500
representing 7786 percents of total work employments and generated gross domestic
products of 40 percents of total gross domestic products (Office of Small and Medium
Enterprises 2010 pp 1-4)
Even though at present there were many enterprises but the majority of entrepreneurs
still had limitation on the managing business system from the lack of experiences (Casey
1996 p5) lack of business planning lack of production knowledge and lack of financial
management and the minimal knowledge on marketing capability (Bougheas Mizen and
Yalcin 2004 Saito and Villanueva 1981 pp 631-640) lack of adaptability to external
environment lack of applying innovation in business (Saengtienchom 2012 pp 1-5) including
the limitation in competing with large business Hence the outcomes of enterprises were not
at good level At the end the entrepreneurs had to close down their businesses after a short
operation (Office of Small and Medium Enterprises 2010 p 8)
The establishment of SMEs in Thailand was at average of over 50000 cases per year and
was with continued increasing trend But it was also with alarm concern over the report
of Business Development Department that there were at the average of 22000 registered
SMEs dissolved their businesses per year (Office of Small and Medium Enterprises 2010 p
10) which did not yield so good outcomes toward the economic and social status of the country
The result revealed that a number of SMEs were with a good business performance with future
growth and sustainability but there were also a substantial number of failure SMEs even
within the similar industry (Jiamjittrong 2010 p3) Hence it was the primary motive for
researcher to conduct this research study on the effect factors toward the competitive advantage
of SMEs
2 Research Objectives
21 Study the opinion level of entrepreneurial marketing capabilities innovation and business
strategy competitive advantage of SMEs in Northern region of Thailand
22 Study the casual relationship among entrepreneurial marketing capabilities innovation
and business strategy toward competitive advantage of SMEs in Northern region of Thailand
3 Scope of Research
Conceptual Framework and Research Hypothesis
The review of relevant literatures under the conceptual framework of Covin and Slevin
(1991) on entrepreneurial conceptual framework of Vorhies (1988) Weerawardena (2003)
372
on marketing capabilities conceptual framework of Drucker ( 1985) Hall ( 1994) Gibbons
( 1997) on innovation conceptual framework of McKinseyrsquos 7S Framework Peters and
Waterman (1982) on business strategy and conceptual framework of Porter (1980) on competitive
advantage The overall conceptual framework with summarized hypothesis as follows
Fig 1 Research Conceptual Framework
4 Relevant Literature reviews
From the review of conceptual frameworks theories and relevant researches on entrepreneurial researcher was able to summarize as follows
41 Entrepreneurial Concept
Entrepreneurial had deeper meaning than entrepreneurs it covered not only the
characteristics of entrepreneurs but it extended to include the process of activities arisen
from the feeling or responsibility of entrepreneurs (Drucket 1985 pp 67-72) The concept of
Bygrave and Hofer (1991) stated the relationship with duty and all related activities on the
generating of opportunities and creativities of organization in achieving such opportunities
It covered the work process through the risk taking for higher benefits the proactive works
creating innovation over competitors (Covin and Slevin 1991 p 277)
Weerawardena and OCass (2004 pp 419ndash 428) quoted that entrepreneurial played
important role in marketing capabilities by entrepreneurs was the mechanism driving or
supporting organization to search for the new market or marketing capabilities and
introducing new products As the owner of business or senior management had the role in
initiating creativities and risk taking in new business operation which aligned with the concept
of Shahid Qureshi (2010) who studied on the relationship and outcomes of entrepreneurial
business strategy and marketing capabilities effect toward the competitive advantage of SMEs
as per the below hypothesis
Entrepreneurial
Marketing Capabilities
Innovation
Competitive Advantage
Business Strategy
H1 H6
H2
H3
H4
H5
H7
H8
373
H1 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward marketing capabilities
Schumpeter (1994) cited the importance of entrepreneurs toward the innovation
development by pointing out that innovation supported the economic growth when
entrepreneurs had created innovation Entrepreneurs had important role toward the success
of innovation development which matched the view of Wingwon (2012 pp1-14) who
mentioned that entrepreneurial strategic decision making and innovation had positive
indirect effect toward the competitive advantage of enterprises through innovation
Furthermore Nelson Jorge Ribeiro Duarte (2010 pp 1-16) concluded the antecedent of
entrepreneurial and business strategy were important toward the competitive advantage
and the sustainable success of organization which in line with the research of Moreno and Jose
casillas (2008 pp507-527) who concluded that entrepreneurial had direct effect toward
business strategy and both factors had relationship toward business success and competitive
advantage of organization at significant level as per the below hypothesis
H2 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward innovation
H3 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward business strategy
42 Marketing Capabilities Concept
Marketing Capability was the mixed process format of knowledge skills with organizational
internal resources which was able to respond to the market demands focus on the value-
added products and services for the organization competitive capability in the market (Vorhies
1988 pp 3-23 Day 1994 pp 37-52) Business was able to be self-development in order to
cope with the customer requirements and competitors including various relevant
environments to solve commercial issues (Tsai and Shih 2004 pp 524-530 Weerawardena
2002 pp 15-36) Business was able to equally share data among all departments in respond
to the marketing demand customer expectation and satisfaction over competitors (Slater and
Narver 1994 pp 46-55) The marketing capabilities supported the competitive advantage of
the organization which leading to larger customers base higher profits (Guenzi and Troilo
2002 pp 974-988 Slater and Narver 2000 pp 120-127 Vorhies 2002 pp 80-94)
In addition the concept of Wingwon (2011 pp 1-10) concluded that innovation
management and shared value had positive effect toward business strategy Morgan Vorhies
and Mason ( 2009 pp 909-92) studied the relationship between marketing capabilities and
competitive advantage of successful enterprises revealed that marketing capabilities had
direct effect toward the competitive advantage of successful enterprises as per below
hypotheses
H4 Marketing capabilities had direct effect toward innovation
H5 Innovation had effect toward business strategy
H2 Marketing capabilities had effect toward competitive advantage
374
43 Innovation Concept
Gibbons (1997 p13) stated that innovation was any new concept or idea in the
organization it could be either on product process or service including the new management
approach and new organizational marketing events which in line with the concept of Hall (1994
pp 19-22) who elaborated that innovation was more than the changing in technology
Innovation consisted of all activities that led to the change and interacted with the developing
or modifying of new technology The common adopted innovation by entrepreneurs in
business competition could be classified into 4 types (Johne 1999 pp 6-11) ie 1) product
and service innovation 2) process innovation 3) marketing innovation and 4) managing
innovation (Urabe Child and Kagono 1988 pp 4-5)
Schumpeter (1950) described innovation as the importance resources in building
competitive advantage had direct effect toward the organization (Damanpour Szabat and
Evan 1989 Han et al 1998) The organization with innovation would have adapted own self
to comply with the changing environment and led to the success with innovation as one of the
important key elements in developing and maintaining competitive capabilities (Damanpour et
al 1989 Han et al 1998) as per the below hypothesis
H7 Innovation had effect toward the competitive advantage
44 Business Strategy Concept
Strategy was plan with specified path or approach for organization to operate in achieving
objectives and targets (Davies 2000 Mintzberg 1996 pp 25-30) with focused on the integrating
and coordinating of the various business environments for the competitive advantage (Porter 1890
1882 1889 Thompson and Strickland 2003) It was the critical elements that entrepreneurs would
have to review in developing business policy strategic plan core value targets and objectives to
enhance organizational capability (Lertpachin 2011 p 5) The concept of McKinseyrsquos 7S Framework
had fundamental concept on efficiency of business derived from the correlation of internal
relevant elements within business ie 1) strategy 2) structure 3) system 4) style 5) staff 6)
skill and 7) shared value (Peters and Waterman 1980)
Duarte (2010) presented that entrepreneurial and business strategy had effect toward
competitive advantage and sustainable success or organization at significant level which aligned
with the concept of Alzal Sawat (2010 pp 87-102) It concluded that marketing capabilities
had effect toward business strategy and both variables had effect toward competitive
advantage and sustainable success or organization as per the below hypothesis
H8 Business strategy had effect toward competitive advantage
45 Competitive Advantage Concept
Porter (1985) described the competitive advantage as the differentiated business value
from competitors created for customers for their satisfactory The generating of competitive
375
advantage consisted of 3 strategic dimensions ie 1) cost leadership strategy was the
competitive strategy which focused on the lowest costs in attracting majority market and in
generating high profits Senior leader applied this strategy in controlling operating costs for
lower than competitors in expanding market shares and in earning higher profits 2)
differentiation strategy was the competitive strategy which focused on the creating of
differences in products in attracting customers to appreciate the outstanding differences
from competitors and 3) focus strategy was the competitive strategy which focused on the
meeting of demands on specific group or area of customers that were often overlooked by other
entrepreneurs It mainly focused on the limited market products or geographic areas
5 Research Methodology
This quantitative research applied survey research concept with 4 scope dimensions ie 1)
Content dimension to study the conceptual framework of entrepreneurial marketing capabilities
innovation business strategy and competitive advantage 2) Population dimension was the SMEs
entrepreneurs from industry commercial and service sectors 3) Area dimension covered 8
provinces in Lanna group ie Chiangrai Chiangmai Lampang Nan Prayao Phrae Lamphun and
Maehongsong 4) Duration dimension covered 8 months period from October 2012 till July 2012
The research tools were questionnaire developed from the literature reviews on 1) Entrepreneurial
was developed from the research works of Miller and Toulouse (1986) and Wingwon (2011) (2)
Marketing capabilities was developed from the research works of Qureshi (2010) and Merriless
Thiele Lye (2011) 3) Innovation was developed from the research works of Drucker (1985) and
Wingwon (2011) 4) Business strategy developed from the research works of McKinseyrsquos 7rsquoS
Framework Peters and Waterman (1982) and 5) Competitive advantage was developed from the
research works of Day and Wensleyrsquos (1988) Porter (1980) and Lee Itsieh (2010) Researcher
applied the 7 levels opinion measurement of Likert scale Population was total 279482 SMErsquos
entrepreneurs in Lanna group (Department of Business Development 2011) applying stratified
random sampling method and proportional selected 500 representative of entrepreneurs from
each province (Office of Small and Medium Enterprises 2010) and received 465 responded
questionnaire representing 93 percent which had been screened for completeness and coded for
research analysis
6 Data Analysis
The research applied descriptive statistics in analysis data to find the percentage means and
standard deviation and inferential statistics to analyze the correlation path in testing of
variables for direct indirect or total effect with SmartPLS program (Ringle Wende and Will
2004) The research tools were measured with Cronbachrsquos Alpha (Lee 1951) eg the value on
entrepreneurial factor was equal to 973 on marketing capabilities factor was 973 on
376
innovation factor was 973 on business strategy was 973 and on competitive advantage was
973
5 Research Summary
Section 1 General profile information of SMEs entrepreneurs
The research outcomes revealed that the majority of total SMEs entrepreneurs from 8
provinces were female in gender with average age between 31-40 years old with
undergraduate educational level and followed by below undergraduate level with business
operation in service sector and followed by in sale distribution representative or commercial
sector with business operation tenure of 1-5 years and followed by 6-10 years with source
of investment from owner finance representing 5140 percents and followed by financial
institution loans representing 4150 percents with majority of business operation at
profitable level representing 5510 percents
Section 2 SMEs entrepreneurs had favorable opinions on all 5 factors at rather high level
ie on entrepreneurial factor with value equal to 519 on marketing capabilities factor with
value equal to 519 on innovation factor with value equal to 485 on business strategy factor
with value equal to 512 and on competitive advantage factor with value equal to 512
Section 3 Outcomes of structural equation model analysis
The outcomes of structural equation model analysis revealed that entrepreneurial factor had
effect toward marketing capabilities with highest coefficient path value equal to 0703 and
with R2 value equal to 0494 and followed by entrepreneurial factor had effect toward
business strategy with coefficient path value equal to 0600 and with R2 value equal to 0479
and lastly entrepreneurial factor had effect toward innovation with coefficient path value
equal to 0477 and with R2 value equal to 0249 The entrepreneurial factor had effect toward
competitive advantage with coefficient path value equal to 0181 and with R2 value equal to
0594
377
Fig 2 Analysis with SmartPLS Program (Ringle Wende and Will 2004)
The marketing capabilities factor had effect toward the competitive advantage with
coefficient path value equal to 0258 and with R2 value equal to 0594 and marketing
capabilities factor had effect toward innovation with coefficient path value equal to 0030 and
with R2 value equal to 0249 The innovation factor had effect toward competitive advantage
with coefficient path value equal to 0029 and with R2 value equal to 0594 and innovation
factor had effect toward business strategy with coefficient path value equal to 0156 and with
R2 value equal to 0479 The business strategy facto had effect toward competitive advantage
with coefficient path value equal to 0568 and with R2 value equal to 059
8 Hypothesis Test
The outcomes of hypothesis test of entrepreneurial marketing capabilities innovation and
business strategy had effect toward competitive advantage of SMEs entrepreneurs at Lanna
group of Thailand could be summarized as follows
Table 2 Outcomes of Direct Indirect and Total Effects
Dependent Variable R2 Effect Antecedent
Entrep Mkt Cap Inno Bus Stra
Compt Ad 0594 DE 0000 0258 0029 0568
IE 0579 0004 0088 0000
TE 0579 0262 0117 0568
Bus Stra 0479 DE 0600 0000 0156 NA
IE 0077 0005 0000 NA
TE 0677 0005 0000 NA
Inno 0249 DE 0477 0030 NA NA
IE 0021 0000 NA NA
TE 0498 0030 NA NA
Mkt Cap 0494 DE 0703 NA NA NA
378
IE 0000 NA NA NA
TE 0703 NA NA NA
Note TE = Total Effect DE = Direct Effect IE = Indirect Effect NA = Not Applicable
Entrep = Entrepreneurial Mkt Cap =Marketing Capabilities Innov =Innovation Bus Stra = Business
Strategy Compt Ad = Competitive Advantage
Table 2 revealed the effect factors had effect on all 4 variables for both direct and indirect
effect toward variables with full details as follows
1 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward marketing capabilities with correlation path
value equal to 0703 and R2 value equal to 0494with direct effect toward innovation with
coefficient path value equal to 0477 and with R2 value equal to 0249 with direct effect
toward business strategy with coefficient path value equal to 0600 and with R2 value equal to
0479 and with indirect effect toward competitive advantage with coefficient path value equal
to 0579 and with R2 value equal to 0594
2 Marketing capabilities had direct effect toward innovation with coefficient path value
equal to 0030 with R2 value equal to 0249 with indirect effect toward business strategy with
coefficient path value equal to 0005 with R2 value equal to 0479 with direct effect toward
competitive advantage with coefficient path value equal to 0258 and with indirect effect
toward competitive advantage with coefficient path value equal to 0004 and with R2 value
equal to 0594
3 Innovation had direct effect toward business strategy with coefficient path value equal to
0156 with R2 value equal to 0479 with direct effect toward competitive advantage with
coefficient path value equal to 0029 and with R2 value equal to 0594 with indirect effect
toward competitive advantage with coefficient path value equal to 0088 and with R2 value
equal to 0594
4 Business strategy had direct effect toward competitive advantage with coefficient path
value equal to 0568 and with R2 value equal to 0594
Table 3 Outcomes of Hypothesis Test
Research Hypothesis Coef t-stat Outcomes
H1 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Marketing Capabilities
0702 848 Supported
H2 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Innovation 0477 442 Supported
H2 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Business Strategy 0600 1147 Supported
379
H4 Marketing Capabilities had direct effect toward Innovation 0029 024 Not Supported
H2 Innovation had effect toward Business Strategy 0156 196 Supported
H2 Marketing Capability had effect toward Competitive Advantage 0257 226 Supported
H7 Innovation had effect toward Competitive Advantage 0028 105 Not Supported
H9 Business Strategy had effect toward Competitive Advantage 0568 582 Supported
Remark t-stat ge 182 indicated that hypothesis with statistical significance at 005 level
Table 3 revealed outcomes of hypothesis test which could be summarized as follows
Hypothesis 1 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Marketing Capabilities
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that entrepreneurial had direct effect toward
marketing capabilities with coefficient path value equal to 0702 and with t-stat value equal
to 848 which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 2 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Innovation
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that entrepreneurial had direct effect toward
innovation with coefficient path value equal to 0477 and with t-state value equal to 442
which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 3 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Business Strategy
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that entrepreneurial had direct effect toward
business strategy at coefficient path value equal to 0600 and with t-state value equal to 1147
which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 4 Marketing Capabilities had direct effect toward Innovation
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that marketing capabilities had direct effect toward
innovation with coefficient path value equal to 0029 and t-stat value equal to 024 which not
supported by hypothesis
Hypothesis 5 Innovation had direct effect toward Business Strategy
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that innovation had direct effect toward business
strategy at coefficient path value equal to 0156 and with t-state value equal to 196 which
supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 6 Marketing Capabilities had effect toward Competitive Advantage
380
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that marketing capabilities had direct effect toward
competitive advantage at coefficient path value equal to 0257 and with t-state value equal
to 226 which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 7 Innovation had effect toward Competitive Advantage
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that innovation had direct effect toward competitive
advantage with coefficient path value equal to 0028 and t-stat value equal to 105 which not
supported by hypothesis
Hypothesis 8 Business Strategy had effect toward Competitive Advantage
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that business strategy had direct effect toward
competitive advantage at coefficient path value equal to 0568 and with t-state value equal
to 582 which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Table 4 Outcomes of Composite Reliability Analysis
Construct CR AVE R2 Construct
Entrep Mkt Cap Inno Bus Stra Compt Ad
Entrep 0935 0534 - 0730
Mkt Cap 0936 0620 0494 0743 0790
Inno 0964 0731 0248 0678 0614 0855
Bus Stra 0942 0645 0478 0455 0381 0498 0803
Compt Ad 0942 0700 0594 0626 0624 0702 0365 0837
Note CR = composite reliability AVE = Average Variance Extracted
Entrep = Entrepreneurial Mkt Cap = Marketing Capabilities Innov = Innovation Bus Stra =Business
Strategy
Compt Ad = Competitive Advantage
Table 4 revealed the composite reliability value of every variable and with AVE value higher
than 050 which indicated that all questions of each indicator were able to measure the value
with reliability and coefficient value of each individual indicator within the same variable had
higher coefficient value than coefficient of the different variable It indicated that
measurement of each construct was able to effectively measure own context which
confirmed its composite reliability
381
9 Research Outcomes Discussion
The majority of SMEs entrepreneurs in Lanna group of Thailand were female in
gender with average age between 31-40 years old which in line with the study of Silverstein
and Sayre (2009 pp 48-90) who stated that female entrepreneurs were more delicate
tolerate and determine in managing business than male in certain situation with particular
on the task which had to deal with relationship with others of both internal and external
organization It could be quoted that lady would be the driver of modern economy which
aligned with the concept of Zimmerer and Scarborough (2002 pp 15-19) who described the
element of entrepreneurs as working group of 30 years old and over with undergraduate
educational level with well living standard with determination in managing business risks
with vision and determination in learning and managing business with business operation in
service sector and followed with the sale distribution representative or commercial sector
with duration in business operation of 1-5 years and followed with 6-10 years with majority
of capital investment from owner private fund with business operation at profitable level and
followed with continued business growth
The majority of SMErsquos entrepreneurs had rather high entrepreneurial marketing
capabilities innovation business strategy which aligned with the concept of Shahid Qureshi
(2010) who discovered that entrepreneurial business strategy and marketing capability had
effect toward the success of enterprises The research outcomes of Wingwon (2012 pp 1-
14) summarized that entrepreneurial strategic decision making and innovation had positive
effect toward competitive advantage of small and medium enterprises by entrepreneurial
had indirect effect toward the competitive advantage of SMEs through innovation Lastly the
competitive advantage had rather high importance as it consisted of the creating of
differentiation cost leadership and focus on core business which matched with the concept
of Barney (1991 pp 99-120) which stated that competitive advantage as perceived by
customers was the higher value of products or services over competitors which could not be
substituted or compared against other offers and with higher switching costs When
comparing the performance outcomes with competitive advantage it revealed the marketing
advantage price competitiveness lower discount than competitors high quality of products
or services durability and innovation
The outcomes of structural equation model revealed that entrepreneurial had direct
effect toward marketing capability which demonstrated that entrepreneurial was the
supporting mechanism for organization in searching for new market and in introducing new
products in market and generated the marketing capability (Liu Luo and Shi 2002 pp 367-
382) It also played the critical role in product and service development (Kerin 1992 pp 331-
334) by applying entrepreneurial as the owner role in creative thinking and risk taking in
operating new business Therefore entrepreneurial had important role for leading the
organization toward marketing capabilities
382
Furthermore entrepreneurial had direct effect toward business strategy which confirmed
with the study of Wingwon (2007) which summarized that entrepreneurship risk
management inspiration and determination of staff and relevant stakeholders It included
the business capacity in operating future business (Wingwon 2007 p 49) with flexibility in
modifying target strategy and proactive operation in order to cope with the evolved changing
environment The research study pointed out the importance of business strategy of SMEs
that supported the SMErsquos sustainability and competitive advantage (Chen and Hambrick 1995
Hitt et al 1991 Storey 1994)
In addition entrepreneurial had direct effect toward innovation with aligned with the
concept of Schumpeter (1994) who quoted the importance of entrepreneurs in innovation
development He pointed out that innovation would assist the economic growth Hence
entrepreneurs had important role in developing innovation and it would in turn assisted
entrepreneurs in achieving business success
Lastly entrepreneurial had indirect effect toward competitive advantage through
marketing capabilities innovation and business strategy which conformed with research work
of Jia ndash Sheng Lee Chia-Jung Hsich (2010) It revealed that entrepreneurial had direct effect
toward marketing capabilities ability in creating innovation sustainable competitive
advantage and entrepreneurial had indirect effect toward sustainable competitive advantage
through marketing capabilities and innovation capability Shahid Qureshi (2010) had also
concluded that entrepreneurial business strategy marketing capability had effect toward
the success of SMEs
10 Research Recommendations
1 The study of entrepreneurial by applying different sampling groups with larger sampling
size The study should cover the large enterprises for comparison on the perception of
entrepreneurial of SMEs against the large enterprises
2 Government sector ought to fully aware and support the knowledge learning on
innovation development on continuous basis for entrepreneurs to applying such knowledge in
supporting competitive advantage and leading the economic development of the country as a
whole
11 References
Ana M M amp Jos C (2008) Entrepreneurial Orientation and Growth of SMEs A Causal
Model Entrepreneurship Theory
Afzal S (2010) Marketing capability strategy and business performance in emerging markets
of Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities 7(2)
Barney J ( 1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage Journal of
Management 17(1) 99ndash120
383
Bougheas S Mizen P amp Yalcin C (2004) Access to External Finance Theory and Evidence
on the Impact of Firm-Specific Characteristic Research Department Working Paper 4 6
Bannock G ( 2005) Economics and Management of Small Business An International
Perspective London Routledge
Boone L E amp Kurtz D L (2010) Contemporary Business (13th ed) New York John Wiley amp Sons
Bygrave W D amp Hofer C W ( 1991) Theorizing about Entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice 16(2) 13
Casey D (1996) Managing Learning Organizations Buckingham Open University Press
Covin J G amp Slevin D P (1991) A Conceptual Model of Entrepreneurship as Firm Behavior
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 16 7-25
Chen M amp Hambrick D C (1995) Speed stealth and selective attach How small firms
differ from large firms in competitive behavior Academy of Management Journal 38(2)
453ndash482
Cronbach L J (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests Psychometrika 16 297-
334
Department of Business Development (2011) Department of Business Development Annual
Report 2011 Bangkok Department of Business Development Ministry of Commerce
Drucker E P (1985) The discipline of innovation Harvard Business Review 67-72
Damanpour F Szabat K A amp Evan W M ( 1989) The relationship between types of
innovation and organizational performance Journal of Management Studies 26(6) 587-
601
Davies W (2000) Derstanding Strategy Strategy and Leadership 28(5) 25-30
Gibbons A ( 1997) Innovation and the Developing System of Knowledge Production University of
Sussex
Guenzi P amp Troilo G (2006) Developing marketing capabilities for customer value creation
through marketing-sales integration Industrial Marketing Management 35(8) 974-988
Hall Peter ( 1994) Innovation Economics amp Evolution Theoretical Perspectives on Changing
Technology in Economic Systems New York Harvester Wheat sheaf
Hitt M A Hoskisson R E amp Harrison J S (1991) Strategic competitiveness in the 1990s
Challenges and opportunities for US executives Academy of Management Executive 5(2) 7ndash
22
384
Han JK Kim N Srivastava R ( 1998) Market orientation and organizational
performanceIs innovation a missing link Journal of Marketing 62 (4) 30-45
Johne A ( 1999) Successful market innovation European Journal of Innovation Management 2
6-11
Jiamjittrong V (2010) Effect of Entrepreneurial toward Business Performance of SMEs Public
Administration Doctorate Degree National Institute of Development Administration
Jia-Sheng Lee amp Chia-Jung Hsieh ( 2 0 1 0 ) A Research in Relating Entrepreneurship
Marketing Capability Innovative Capability and Sustained Competitive Advantage EABR
amp ETLC Conference Proceedings Dublin Ireland
Lertpachin C ( 2 011) Strategy for Modern Entrepreneurs amidst ASEAN Economics
Community Environment Social Sciences Journal Faculty of Social Sciences Chiangrai
Rajabhat University
Liu S X Luo amp Y Shi (2002) Integrating Customer Orientation Corporate
Entrepreneurship and Learning Orientation in Organization-in-Transition an Empirical
Study Internal Journal of Research in Marketing 19 367-382
Mintzberg H ( 1996) Five Ps for Strategy In ProcessndashConcepts Contexts and Cases
Mintzberg H and Quinn Jn Eds Upper Saddle River New Jersey Prentice Hall
Michael J S amp Kate S (2009) The female economy Harvard business review September
2009
Nelson Jorge Ribeiro Duarte (2010) The Role of Firms and Entrepreneurship on Local
Development in the egion of Vale Do Sousa Francisco Joseacute Lopes de Sousa Diniz
Neil A Morgan D W Vorhies amp Charlotte H M (2009) Market Orientation Marketing
Capabilities and Firm Performance Strategic Management Journal 30 909ndash920
Nelson J amp Ribeiro D (2010) The Role of Firms and Entrepreneurship on Local Development
in the egion of Vale Do Sousa Francisco Joseacute Lopes de Sousa Diniz
Office of Small and Medium Enterprises (2010) Small and Medium Enterprises Status Report
2010 and Trend 2011 Bangkok Office of Small and Medium Enterprises
Porter M E (1980) Competitive Strategy New York The Free Press
Porter ME (1996) What is strategy Harvard Business Review 74(6) 61-78
Porter M E (1985) Competitive Strategy Techniques for Analyzing Industries and
Competitors New York The Free Press
385
Porter M E (1998) Competitive Strategy Techniques for Analyzing Industries and
Competitors (1st ed) Illinois The Free Press
Porter M E (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations New York The Free Press
Robert W Thomas J P amp Julien R P ( 1980) Structure is not organization Business
Horizons 23(3) 14-26
Ringle C M Wende S amp Will A ( 2004) Smart PLS 20 ( M3) Germany University of
Hambury
Saengtienchom C (2012) SMEs and Country Economy [Online] Available
wwwrtcacthwww_km020220024_2-2553pdf [2555 March 10]
Schumpeter J (1994) A History of Economic Analysis London Routledge
Schumpeter J A ( 1950) Capitalism socialism and democracy (3rd ed) New York Harper and
Row
Shahid Q (2011) Antecedents and outcomes of entrepreneurial firms marketing capabilities
An empirical investigation of small technology based firm Journal of Strategic Innovation
and Sustainability 6(4)
Slater S F amp Narver J C (1994) Does Competitive Environment Moderate the Market
Orientation-Performance Relationship Journal of Marketing 58 46-55
Saito K A amp Villanueva D P (1981) Transaction costs of credit to the small-scale sector in
philippines Economic Development and Cultural Change 29(3) 631-640
Sertvanich K (2005) Must Correct SMEs Filature Bangkok C-Education
Tsai M T amp Shih C M (2004) The impact of marketing knowledge among managers on
marketing capabilities and business performance International Journal of Management
21(4) 524-530
Thompson A A amp Strickland A J (2003) Strategic Management Concepts and Case (11th ed)
New York McGraw-Hill
Urabe K Child J amp Kagono T ( 1 9 8 8 ) Innovation and Management International
Comparisons The concept of fit in contingency theory Berlin Walter de Gruyter amp Co
Vorhies D W (1998) An investigation of the factors leading to the development of marketing
capabilities and organizational effectiveness Journal of Strategic Marketing 6(1) 3-23
Weerawardena J (2003) The role of marketing capability in innovation ndash Based competitive
strategy Journal of Strategy Marketing 11 15-35
386
Weerawardena J O Cass A amp Julian C (2002) lsquoDoes industry matter Examining the role
of industry structure in innovation-based competitive marketing strategy Journal of
Business Research 59 37-45
Wingwon B ( 2007) SMEs Business Management Department of General Management
Faculty of Management Science Lampang Rajabhat University
Wingwon B (2011) Antecedents and Outcomes of Business Strategy for SMEs
Entrepreneurs in Northern Region Faculty of Management Science Lampang Rajabhat
University
Wingwon B (2012) Effects of entrepreneurship organization capability strategic decision
making and innovation toward the competitive advantage of SMEs enterprises Journal of
Management and Sustainability 2(1) 78-93
Zimmerer T W amp Scarborough N M (2002) Essentials of Entrepreneurship and Small
Business Management (4thed) New Jersey Prentice-Hall
371
substantial foreign currency each year It was also enhancing experience of entrepreneurs
(Boone and Kurtz 2010) in producing numerous products and in preventing monopoly in such
industry since competition would integrating among enterprises of all sizes within domestic
and international marketing which in turn would generated economic flow at macro level
(Sertvanich 2005 p 2)
By year 2010 the number of enterprises in Thailand had climbed to 2924910 representing
9960 percents of total enterprises of all types creating the work employment of 10507500
representing 7786 percents of total work employments and generated gross domestic
products of 40 percents of total gross domestic products (Office of Small and Medium
Enterprises 2010 pp 1-4)
Even though at present there were many enterprises but the majority of entrepreneurs
still had limitation on the managing business system from the lack of experiences (Casey
1996 p5) lack of business planning lack of production knowledge and lack of financial
management and the minimal knowledge on marketing capability (Bougheas Mizen and
Yalcin 2004 Saito and Villanueva 1981 pp 631-640) lack of adaptability to external
environment lack of applying innovation in business (Saengtienchom 2012 pp 1-5) including
the limitation in competing with large business Hence the outcomes of enterprises were not
at good level At the end the entrepreneurs had to close down their businesses after a short
operation (Office of Small and Medium Enterprises 2010 p 8)
The establishment of SMEs in Thailand was at average of over 50000 cases per year and
was with continued increasing trend But it was also with alarm concern over the report
of Business Development Department that there were at the average of 22000 registered
SMEs dissolved their businesses per year (Office of Small and Medium Enterprises 2010 p
10) which did not yield so good outcomes toward the economic and social status of the country
The result revealed that a number of SMEs were with a good business performance with future
growth and sustainability but there were also a substantial number of failure SMEs even
within the similar industry (Jiamjittrong 2010 p3) Hence it was the primary motive for
researcher to conduct this research study on the effect factors toward the competitive advantage
of SMEs
2 Research Objectives
21 Study the opinion level of entrepreneurial marketing capabilities innovation and business
strategy competitive advantage of SMEs in Northern region of Thailand
22 Study the casual relationship among entrepreneurial marketing capabilities innovation
and business strategy toward competitive advantage of SMEs in Northern region of Thailand
3 Scope of Research
Conceptual Framework and Research Hypothesis
The review of relevant literatures under the conceptual framework of Covin and Slevin
(1991) on entrepreneurial conceptual framework of Vorhies (1988) Weerawardena (2003)
372
on marketing capabilities conceptual framework of Drucker ( 1985) Hall ( 1994) Gibbons
( 1997) on innovation conceptual framework of McKinseyrsquos 7S Framework Peters and
Waterman (1982) on business strategy and conceptual framework of Porter (1980) on competitive
advantage The overall conceptual framework with summarized hypothesis as follows
Fig 1 Research Conceptual Framework
4 Relevant Literature reviews
From the review of conceptual frameworks theories and relevant researches on entrepreneurial researcher was able to summarize as follows
41 Entrepreneurial Concept
Entrepreneurial had deeper meaning than entrepreneurs it covered not only the
characteristics of entrepreneurs but it extended to include the process of activities arisen
from the feeling or responsibility of entrepreneurs (Drucket 1985 pp 67-72) The concept of
Bygrave and Hofer (1991) stated the relationship with duty and all related activities on the
generating of opportunities and creativities of organization in achieving such opportunities
It covered the work process through the risk taking for higher benefits the proactive works
creating innovation over competitors (Covin and Slevin 1991 p 277)
Weerawardena and OCass (2004 pp 419ndash 428) quoted that entrepreneurial played
important role in marketing capabilities by entrepreneurs was the mechanism driving or
supporting organization to search for the new market or marketing capabilities and
introducing new products As the owner of business or senior management had the role in
initiating creativities and risk taking in new business operation which aligned with the concept
of Shahid Qureshi (2010) who studied on the relationship and outcomes of entrepreneurial
business strategy and marketing capabilities effect toward the competitive advantage of SMEs
as per the below hypothesis
Entrepreneurial
Marketing Capabilities
Innovation
Competitive Advantage
Business Strategy
H1 H6
H2
H3
H4
H5
H7
H8
373
H1 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward marketing capabilities
Schumpeter (1994) cited the importance of entrepreneurs toward the innovation
development by pointing out that innovation supported the economic growth when
entrepreneurs had created innovation Entrepreneurs had important role toward the success
of innovation development which matched the view of Wingwon (2012 pp1-14) who
mentioned that entrepreneurial strategic decision making and innovation had positive
indirect effect toward the competitive advantage of enterprises through innovation
Furthermore Nelson Jorge Ribeiro Duarte (2010 pp 1-16) concluded the antecedent of
entrepreneurial and business strategy were important toward the competitive advantage
and the sustainable success of organization which in line with the research of Moreno and Jose
casillas (2008 pp507-527) who concluded that entrepreneurial had direct effect toward
business strategy and both factors had relationship toward business success and competitive
advantage of organization at significant level as per the below hypothesis
H2 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward innovation
H3 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward business strategy
42 Marketing Capabilities Concept
Marketing Capability was the mixed process format of knowledge skills with organizational
internal resources which was able to respond to the market demands focus on the value-
added products and services for the organization competitive capability in the market (Vorhies
1988 pp 3-23 Day 1994 pp 37-52) Business was able to be self-development in order to
cope with the customer requirements and competitors including various relevant
environments to solve commercial issues (Tsai and Shih 2004 pp 524-530 Weerawardena
2002 pp 15-36) Business was able to equally share data among all departments in respond
to the marketing demand customer expectation and satisfaction over competitors (Slater and
Narver 1994 pp 46-55) The marketing capabilities supported the competitive advantage of
the organization which leading to larger customers base higher profits (Guenzi and Troilo
2002 pp 974-988 Slater and Narver 2000 pp 120-127 Vorhies 2002 pp 80-94)
In addition the concept of Wingwon (2011 pp 1-10) concluded that innovation
management and shared value had positive effect toward business strategy Morgan Vorhies
and Mason ( 2009 pp 909-92) studied the relationship between marketing capabilities and
competitive advantage of successful enterprises revealed that marketing capabilities had
direct effect toward the competitive advantage of successful enterprises as per below
hypotheses
H4 Marketing capabilities had direct effect toward innovation
H5 Innovation had effect toward business strategy
H2 Marketing capabilities had effect toward competitive advantage
374
43 Innovation Concept
Gibbons (1997 p13) stated that innovation was any new concept or idea in the
organization it could be either on product process or service including the new management
approach and new organizational marketing events which in line with the concept of Hall (1994
pp 19-22) who elaborated that innovation was more than the changing in technology
Innovation consisted of all activities that led to the change and interacted with the developing
or modifying of new technology The common adopted innovation by entrepreneurs in
business competition could be classified into 4 types (Johne 1999 pp 6-11) ie 1) product
and service innovation 2) process innovation 3) marketing innovation and 4) managing
innovation (Urabe Child and Kagono 1988 pp 4-5)
Schumpeter (1950) described innovation as the importance resources in building
competitive advantage had direct effect toward the organization (Damanpour Szabat and
Evan 1989 Han et al 1998) The organization with innovation would have adapted own self
to comply with the changing environment and led to the success with innovation as one of the
important key elements in developing and maintaining competitive capabilities (Damanpour et
al 1989 Han et al 1998) as per the below hypothesis
H7 Innovation had effect toward the competitive advantage
44 Business Strategy Concept
Strategy was plan with specified path or approach for organization to operate in achieving
objectives and targets (Davies 2000 Mintzberg 1996 pp 25-30) with focused on the integrating
and coordinating of the various business environments for the competitive advantage (Porter 1890
1882 1889 Thompson and Strickland 2003) It was the critical elements that entrepreneurs would
have to review in developing business policy strategic plan core value targets and objectives to
enhance organizational capability (Lertpachin 2011 p 5) The concept of McKinseyrsquos 7S Framework
had fundamental concept on efficiency of business derived from the correlation of internal
relevant elements within business ie 1) strategy 2) structure 3) system 4) style 5) staff 6)
skill and 7) shared value (Peters and Waterman 1980)
Duarte (2010) presented that entrepreneurial and business strategy had effect toward
competitive advantage and sustainable success or organization at significant level which aligned
with the concept of Alzal Sawat (2010 pp 87-102) It concluded that marketing capabilities
had effect toward business strategy and both variables had effect toward competitive
advantage and sustainable success or organization as per the below hypothesis
H8 Business strategy had effect toward competitive advantage
45 Competitive Advantage Concept
Porter (1985) described the competitive advantage as the differentiated business value
from competitors created for customers for their satisfactory The generating of competitive
375
advantage consisted of 3 strategic dimensions ie 1) cost leadership strategy was the
competitive strategy which focused on the lowest costs in attracting majority market and in
generating high profits Senior leader applied this strategy in controlling operating costs for
lower than competitors in expanding market shares and in earning higher profits 2)
differentiation strategy was the competitive strategy which focused on the creating of
differences in products in attracting customers to appreciate the outstanding differences
from competitors and 3) focus strategy was the competitive strategy which focused on the
meeting of demands on specific group or area of customers that were often overlooked by other
entrepreneurs It mainly focused on the limited market products or geographic areas
5 Research Methodology
This quantitative research applied survey research concept with 4 scope dimensions ie 1)
Content dimension to study the conceptual framework of entrepreneurial marketing capabilities
innovation business strategy and competitive advantage 2) Population dimension was the SMEs
entrepreneurs from industry commercial and service sectors 3) Area dimension covered 8
provinces in Lanna group ie Chiangrai Chiangmai Lampang Nan Prayao Phrae Lamphun and
Maehongsong 4) Duration dimension covered 8 months period from October 2012 till July 2012
The research tools were questionnaire developed from the literature reviews on 1) Entrepreneurial
was developed from the research works of Miller and Toulouse (1986) and Wingwon (2011) (2)
Marketing capabilities was developed from the research works of Qureshi (2010) and Merriless
Thiele Lye (2011) 3) Innovation was developed from the research works of Drucker (1985) and
Wingwon (2011) 4) Business strategy developed from the research works of McKinseyrsquos 7rsquoS
Framework Peters and Waterman (1982) and 5) Competitive advantage was developed from the
research works of Day and Wensleyrsquos (1988) Porter (1980) and Lee Itsieh (2010) Researcher
applied the 7 levels opinion measurement of Likert scale Population was total 279482 SMErsquos
entrepreneurs in Lanna group (Department of Business Development 2011) applying stratified
random sampling method and proportional selected 500 representative of entrepreneurs from
each province (Office of Small and Medium Enterprises 2010) and received 465 responded
questionnaire representing 93 percent which had been screened for completeness and coded for
research analysis
6 Data Analysis
The research applied descriptive statistics in analysis data to find the percentage means and
standard deviation and inferential statistics to analyze the correlation path in testing of
variables for direct indirect or total effect with SmartPLS program (Ringle Wende and Will
2004) The research tools were measured with Cronbachrsquos Alpha (Lee 1951) eg the value on
entrepreneurial factor was equal to 973 on marketing capabilities factor was 973 on
376
innovation factor was 973 on business strategy was 973 and on competitive advantage was
973
5 Research Summary
Section 1 General profile information of SMEs entrepreneurs
The research outcomes revealed that the majority of total SMEs entrepreneurs from 8
provinces were female in gender with average age between 31-40 years old with
undergraduate educational level and followed by below undergraduate level with business
operation in service sector and followed by in sale distribution representative or commercial
sector with business operation tenure of 1-5 years and followed by 6-10 years with source
of investment from owner finance representing 5140 percents and followed by financial
institution loans representing 4150 percents with majority of business operation at
profitable level representing 5510 percents
Section 2 SMEs entrepreneurs had favorable opinions on all 5 factors at rather high level
ie on entrepreneurial factor with value equal to 519 on marketing capabilities factor with
value equal to 519 on innovation factor with value equal to 485 on business strategy factor
with value equal to 512 and on competitive advantage factor with value equal to 512
Section 3 Outcomes of structural equation model analysis
The outcomes of structural equation model analysis revealed that entrepreneurial factor had
effect toward marketing capabilities with highest coefficient path value equal to 0703 and
with R2 value equal to 0494 and followed by entrepreneurial factor had effect toward
business strategy with coefficient path value equal to 0600 and with R2 value equal to 0479
and lastly entrepreneurial factor had effect toward innovation with coefficient path value
equal to 0477 and with R2 value equal to 0249 The entrepreneurial factor had effect toward
competitive advantage with coefficient path value equal to 0181 and with R2 value equal to
0594
377
Fig 2 Analysis with SmartPLS Program (Ringle Wende and Will 2004)
The marketing capabilities factor had effect toward the competitive advantage with
coefficient path value equal to 0258 and with R2 value equal to 0594 and marketing
capabilities factor had effect toward innovation with coefficient path value equal to 0030 and
with R2 value equal to 0249 The innovation factor had effect toward competitive advantage
with coefficient path value equal to 0029 and with R2 value equal to 0594 and innovation
factor had effect toward business strategy with coefficient path value equal to 0156 and with
R2 value equal to 0479 The business strategy facto had effect toward competitive advantage
with coefficient path value equal to 0568 and with R2 value equal to 059
8 Hypothesis Test
The outcomes of hypothesis test of entrepreneurial marketing capabilities innovation and
business strategy had effect toward competitive advantage of SMEs entrepreneurs at Lanna
group of Thailand could be summarized as follows
Table 2 Outcomes of Direct Indirect and Total Effects
Dependent Variable R2 Effect Antecedent
Entrep Mkt Cap Inno Bus Stra
Compt Ad 0594 DE 0000 0258 0029 0568
IE 0579 0004 0088 0000
TE 0579 0262 0117 0568
Bus Stra 0479 DE 0600 0000 0156 NA
IE 0077 0005 0000 NA
TE 0677 0005 0000 NA
Inno 0249 DE 0477 0030 NA NA
IE 0021 0000 NA NA
TE 0498 0030 NA NA
Mkt Cap 0494 DE 0703 NA NA NA
378
IE 0000 NA NA NA
TE 0703 NA NA NA
Note TE = Total Effect DE = Direct Effect IE = Indirect Effect NA = Not Applicable
Entrep = Entrepreneurial Mkt Cap =Marketing Capabilities Innov =Innovation Bus Stra = Business
Strategy Compt Ad = Competitive Advantage
Table 2 revealed the effect factors had effect on all 4 variables for both direct and indirect
effect toward variables with full details as follows
1 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward marketing capabilities with correlation path
value equal to 0703 and R2 value equal to 0494with direct effect toward innovation with
coefficient path value equal to 0477 and with R2 value equal to 0249 with direct effect
toward business strategy with coefficient path value equal to 0600 and with R2 value equal to
0479 and with indirect effect toward competitive advantage with coefficient path value equal
to 0579 and with R2 value equal to 0594
2 Marketing capabilities had direct effect toward innovation with coefficient path value
equal to 0030 with R2 value equal to 0249 with indirect effect toward business strategy with
coefficient path value equal to 0005 with R2 value equal to 0479 with direct effect toward
competitive advantage with coefficient path value equal to 0258 and with indirect effect
toward competitive advantage with coefficient path value equal to 0004 and with R2 value
equal to 0594
3 Innovation had direct effect toward business strategy with coefficient path value equal to
0156 with R2 value equal to 0479 with direct effect toward competitive advantage with
coefficient path value equal to 0029 and with R2 value equal to 0594 with indirect effect
toward competitive advantage with coefficient path value equal to 0088 and with R2 value
equal to 0594
4 Business strategy had direct effect toward competitive advantage with coefficient path
value equal to 0568 and with R2 value equal to 0594
Table 3 Outcomes of Hypothesis Test
Research Hypothesis Coef t-stat Outcomes
H1 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Marketing Capabilities
0702 848 Supported
H2 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Innovation 0477 442 Supported
H2 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Business Strategy 0600 1147 Supported
379
H4 Marketing Capabilities had direct effect toward Innovation 0029 024 Not Supported
H2 Innovation had effect toward Business Strategy 0156 196 Supported
H2 Marketing Capability had effect toward Competitive Advantage 0257 226 Supported
H7 Innovation had effect toward Competitive Advantage 0028 105 Not Supported
H9 Business Strategy had effect toward Competitive Advantage 0568 582 Supported
Remark t-stat ge 182 indicated that hypothesis with statistical significance at 005 level
Table 3 revealed outcomes of hypothesis test which could be summarized as follows
Hypothesis 1 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Marketing Capabilities
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that entrepreneurial had direct effect toward
marketing capabilities with coefficient path value equal to 0702 and with t-stat value equal
to 848 which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 2 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Innovation
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that entrepreneurial had direct effect toward
innovation with coefficient path value equal to 0477 and with t-state value equal to 442
which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 3 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Business Strategy
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that entrepreneurial had direct effect toward
business strategy at coefficient path value equal to 0600 and with t-state value equal to 1147
which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 4 Marketing Capabilities had direct effect toward Innovation
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that marketing capabilities had direct effect toward
innovation with coefficient path value equal to 0029 and t-stat value equal to 024 which not
supported by hypothesis
Hypothesis 5 Innovation had direct effect toward Business Strategy
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that innovation had direct effect toward business
strategy at coefficient path value equal to 0156 and with t-state value equal to 196 which
supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 6 Marketing Capabilities had effect toward Competitive Advantage
380
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that marketing capabilities had direct effect toward
competitive advantage at coefficient path value equal to 0257 and with t-state value equal
to 226 which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 7 Innovation had effect toward Competitive Advantage
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that innovation had direct effect toward competitive
advantage with coefficient path value equal to 0028 and t-stat value equal to 105 which not
supported by hypothesis
Hypothesis 8 Business Strategy had effect toward Competitive Advantage
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that business strategy had direct effect toward
competitive advantage at coefficient path value equal to 0568 and with t-state value equal
to 582 which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Table 4 Outcomes of Composite Reliability Analysis
Construct CR AVE R2 Construct
Entrep Mkt Cap Inno Bus Stra Compt Ad
Entrep 0935 0534 - 0730
Mkt Cap 0936 0620 0494 0743 0790
Inno 0964 0731 0248 0678 0614 0855
Bus Stra 0942 0645 0478 0455 0381 0498 0803
Compt Ad 0942 0700 0594 0626 0624 0702 0365 0837
Note CR = composite reliability AVE = Average Variance Extracted
Entrep = Entrepreneurial Mkt Cap = Marketing Capabilities Innov = Innovation Bus Stra =Business
Strategy
Compt Ad = Competitive Advantage
Table 4 revealed the composite reliability value of every variable and with AVE value higher
than 050 which indicated that all questions of each indicator were able to measure the value
with reliability and coefficient value of each individual indicator within the same variable had
higher coefficient value than coefficient of the different variable It indicated that
measurement of each construct was able to effectively measure own context which
confirmed its composite reliability
381
9 Research Outcomes Discussion
The majority of SMEs entrepreneurs in Lanna group of Thailand were female in
gender with average age between 31-40 years old which in line with the study of Silverstein
and Sayre (2009 pp 48-90) who stated that female entrepreneurs were more delicate
tolerate and determine in managing business than male in certain situation with particular
on the task which had to deal with relationship with others of both internal and external
organization It could be quoted that lady would be the driver of modern economy which
aligned with the concept of Zimmerer and Scarborough (2002 pp 15-19) who described the
element of entrepreneurs as working group of 30 years old and over with undergraduate
educational level with well living standard with determination in managing business risks
with vision and determination in learning and managing business with business operation in
service sector and followed with the sale distribution representative or commercial sector
with duration in business operation of 1-5 years and followed with 6-10 years with majority
of capital investment from owner private fund with business operation at profitable level and
followed with continued business growth
The majority of SMErsquos entrepreneurs had rather high entrepreneurial marketing
capabilities innovation business strategy which aligned with the concept of Shahid Qureshi
(2010) who discovered that entrepreneurial business strategy and marketing capability had
effect toward the success of enterprises The research outcomes of Wingwon (2012 pp 1-
14) summarized that entrepreneurial strategic decision making and innovation had positive
effect toward competitive advantage of small and medium enterprises by entrepreneurial
had indirect effect toward the competitive advantage of SMEs through innovation Lastly the
competitive advantage had rather high importance as it consisted of the creating of
differentiation cost leadership and focus on core business which matched with the concept
of Barney (1991 pp 99-120) which stated that competitive advantage as perceived by
customers was the higher value of products or services over competitors which could not be
substituted or compared against other offers and with higher switching costs When
comparing the performance outcomes with competitive advantage it revealed the marketing
advantage price competitiveness lower discount than competitors high quality of products
or services durability and innovation
The outcomes of structural equation model revealed that entrepreneurial had direct
effect toward marketing capability which demonstrated that entrepreneurial was the
supporting mechanism for organization in searching for new market and in introducing new
products in market and generated the marketing capability (Liu Luo and Shi 2002 pp 367-
382) It also played the critical role in product and service development (Kerin 1992 pp 331-
334) by applying entrepreneurial as the owner role in creative thinking and risk taking in
operating new business Therefore entrepreneurial had important role for leading the
organization toward marketing capabilities
382
Furthermore entrepreneurial had direct effect toward business strategy which confirmed
with the study of Wingwon (2007) which summarized that entrepreneurship risk
management inspiration and determination of staff and relevant stakeholders It included
the business capacity in operating future business (Wingwon 2007 p 49) with flexibility in
modifying target strategy and proactive operation in order to cope with the evolved changing
environment The research study pointed out the importance of business strategy of SMEs
that supported the SMErsquos sustainability and competitive advantage (Chen and Hambrick 1995
Hitt et al 1991 Storey 1994)
In addition entrepreneurial had direct effect toward innovation with aligned with the
concept of Schumpeter (1994) who quoted the importance of entrepreneurs in innovation
development He pointed out that innovation would assist the economic growth Hence
entrepreneurs had important role in developing innovation and it would in turn assisted
entrepreneurs in achieving business success
Lastly entrepreneurial had indirect effect toward competitive advantage through
marketing capabilities innovation and business strategy which conformed with research work
of Jia ndash Sheng Lee Chia-Jung Hsich (2010) It revealed that entrepreneurial had direct effect
toward marketing capabilities ability in creating innovation sustainable competitive
advantage and entrepreneurial had indirect effect toward sustainable competitive advantage
through marketing capabilities and innovation capability Shahid Qureshi (2010) had also
concluded that entrepreneurial business strategy marketing capability had effect toward
the success of SMEs
10 Research Recommendations
1 The study of entrepreneurial by applying different sampling groups with larger sampling
size The study should cover the large enterprises for comparison on the perception of
entrepreneurial of SMEs against the large enterprises
2 Government sector ought to fully aware and support the knowledge learning on
innovation development on continuous basis for entrepreneurs to applying such knowledge in
supporting competitive advantage and leading the economic development of the country as a
whole
11 References
Ana M M amp Jos C (2008) Entrepreneurial Orientation and Growth of SMEs A Causal
Model Entrepreneurship Theory
Afzal S (2010) Marketing capability strategy and business performance in emerging markets
of Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities 7(2)
Barney J ( 1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage Journal of
Management 17(1) 99ndash120
383
Bougheas S Mizen P amp Yalcin C (2004) Access to External Finance Theory and Evidence
on the Impact of Firm-Specific Characteristic Research Department Working Paper 4 6
Bannock G ( 2005) Economics and Management of Small Business An International
Perspective London Routledge
Boone L E amp Kurtz D L (2010) Contemporary Business (13th ed) New York John Wiley amp Sons
Bygrave W D amp Hofer C W ( 1991) Theorizing about Entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice 16(2) 13
Casey D (1996) Managing Learning Organizations Buckingham Open University Press
Covin J G amp Slevin D P (1991) A Conceptual Model of Entrepreneurship as Firm Behavior
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 16 7-25
Chen M amp Hambrick D C (1995) Speed stealth and selective attach How small firms
differ from large firms in competitive behavior Academy of Management Journal 38(2)
453ndash482
Cronbach L J (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests Psychometrika 16 297-
334
Department of Business Development (2011) Department of Business Development Annual
Report 2011 Bangkok Department of Business Development Ministry of Commerce
Drucker E P (1985) The discipline of innovation Harvard Business Review 67-72
Damanpour F Szabat K A amp Evan W M ( 1989) The relationship between types of
innovation and organizational performance Journal of Management Studies 26(6) 587-
601
Davies W (2000) Derstanding Strategy Strategy and Leadership 28(5) 25-30
Gibbons A ( 1997) Innovation and the Developing System of Knowledge Production University of
Sussex
Guenzi P amp Troilo G (2006) Developing marketing capabilities for customer value creation
through marketing-sales integration Industrial Marketing Management 35(8) 974-988
Hall Peter ( 1994) Innovation Economics amp Evolution Theoretical Perspectives on Changing
Technology in Economic Systems New York Harvester Wheat sheaf
Hitt M A Hoskisson R E amp Harrison J S (1991) Strategic competitiveness in the 1990s
Challenges and opportunities for US executives Academy of Management Executive 5(2) 7ndash
22
384
Han JK Kim N Srivastava R ( 1998) Market orientation and organizational
performanceIs innovation a missing link Journal of Marketing 62 (4) 30-45
Johne A ( 1999) Successful market innovation European Journal of Innovation Management 2
6-11
Jiamjittrong V (2010) Effect of Entrepreneurial toward Business Performance of SMEs Public
Administration Doctorate Degree National Institute of Development Administration
Jia-Sheng Lee amp Chia-Jung Hsieh ( 2 0 1 0 ) A Research in Relating Entrepreneurship
Marketing Capability Innovative Capability and Sustained Competitive Advantage EABR
amp ETLC Conference Proceedings Dublin Ireland
Lertpachin C ( 2 011) Strategy for Modern Entrepreneurs amidst ASEAN Economics
Community Environment Social Sciences Journal Faculty of Social Sciences Chiangrai
Rajabhat University
Liu S X Luo amp Y Shi (2002) Integrating Customer Orientation Corporate
Entrepreneurship and Learning Orientation in Organization-in-Transition an Empirical
Study Internal Journal of Research in Marketing 19 367-382
Mintzberg H ( 1996) Five Ps for Strategy In ProcessndashConcepts Contexts and Cases
Mintzberg H and Quinn Jn Eds Upper Saddle River New Jersey Prentice Hall
Michael J S amp Kate S (2009) The female economy Harvard business review September
2009
Nelson Jorge Ribeiro Duarte (2010) The Role of Firms and Entrepreneurship on Local
Development in the egion of Vale Do Sousa Francisco Joseacute Lopes de Sousa Diniz
Neil A Morgan D W Vorhies amp Charlotte H M (2009) Market Orientation Marketing
Capabilities and Firm Performance Strategic Management Journal 30 909ndash920
Nelson J amp Ribeiro D (2010) The Role of Firms and Entrepreneurship on Local Development
in the egion of Vale Do Sousa Francisco Joseacute Lopes de Sousa Diniz
Office of Small and Medium Enterprises (2010) Small and Medium Enterprises Status Report
2010 and Trend 2011 Bangkok Office of Small and Medium Enterprises
Porter M E (1980) Competitive Strategy New York The Free Press
Porter ME (1996) What is strategy Harvard Business Review 74(6) 61-78
Porter M E (1985) Competitive Strategy Techniques for Analyzing Industries and
Competitors New York The Free Press
385
Porter M E (1998) Competitive Strategy Techniques for Analyzing Industries and
Competitors (1st ed) Illinois The Free Press
Porter M E (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations New York The Free Press
Robert W Thomas J P amp Julien R P ( 1980) Structure is not organization Business
Horizons 23(3) 14-26
Ringle C M Wende S amp Will A ( 2004) Smart PLS 20 ( M3) Germany University of
Hambury
Saengtienchom C (2012) SMEs and Country Economy [Online] Available
wwwrtcacthwww_km020220024_2-2553pdf [2555 March 10]
Schumpeter J (1994) A History of Economic Analysis London Routledge
Schumpeter J A ( 1950) Capitalism socialism and democracy (3rd ed) New York Harper and
Row
Shahid Q (2011) Antecedents and outcomes of entrepreneurial firms marketing capabilities
An empirical investigation of small technology based firm Journal of Strategic Innovation
and Sustainability 6(4)
Slater S F amp Narver J C (1994) Does Competitive Environment Moderate the Market
Orientation-Performance Relationship Journal of Marketing 58 46-55
Saito K A amp Villanueva D P (1981) Transaction costs of credit to the small-scale sector in
philippines Economic Development and Cultural Change 29(3) 631-640
Sertvanich K (2005) Must Correct SMEs Filature Bangkok C-Education
Tsai M T amp Shih C M (2004) The impact of marketing knowledge among managers on
marketing capabilities and business performance International Journal of Management
21(4) 524-530
Thompson A A amp Strickland A J (2003) Strategic Management Concepts and Case (11th ed)
New York McGraw-Hill
Urabe K Child J amp Kagono T ( 1 9 8 8 ) Innovation and Management International
Comparisons The concept of fit in contingency theory Berlin Walter de Gruyter amp Co
Vorhies D W (1998) An investigation of the factors leading to the development of marketing
capabilities and organizational effectiveness Journal of Strategic Marketing 6(1) 3-23
Weerawardena J (2003) The role of marketing capability in innovation ndash Based competitive
strategy Journal of Strategy Marketing 11 15-35
386
Weerawardena J O Cass A amp Julian C (2002) lsquoDoes industry matter Examining the role
of industry structure in innovation-based competitive marketing strategy Journal of
Business Research 59 37-45
Wingwon B ( 2007) SMEs Business Management Department of General Management
Faculty of Management Science Lampang Rajabhat University
Wingwon B (2011) Antecedents and Outcomes of Business Strategy for SMEs
Entrepreneurs in Northern Region Faculty of Management Science Lampang Rajabhat
University
Wingwon B (2012) Effects of entrepreneurship organization capability strategic decision
making and innovation toward the competitive advantage of SMEs enterprises Journal of
Management and Sustainability 2(1) 78-93
Zimmerer T W amp Scarborough N M (2002) Essentials of Entrepreneurship and Small
Business Management (4thed) New Jersey Prentice-Hall
372
on marketing capabilities conceptual framework of Drucker ( 1985) Hall ( 1994) Gibbons
( 1997) on innovation conceptual framework of McKinseyrsquos 7S Framework Peters and
Waterman (1982) on business strategy and conceptual framework of Porter (1980) on competitive
advantage The overall conceptual framework with summarized hypothesis as follows
Fig 1 Research Conceptual Framework
4 Relevant Literature reviews
From the review of conceptual frameworks theories and relevant researches on entrepreneurial researcher was able to summarize as follows
41 Entrepreneurial Concept
Entrepreneurial had deeper meaning than entrepreneurs it covered not only the
characteristics of entrepreneurs but it extended to include the process of activities arisen
from the feeling or responsibility of entrepreneurs (Drucket 1985 pp 67-72) The concept of
Bygrave and Hofer (1991) stated the relationship with duty and all related activities on the
generating of opportunities and creativities of organization in achieving such opportunities
It covered the work process through the risk taking for higher benefits the proactive works
creating innovation over competitors (Covin and Slevin 1991 p 277)
Weerawardena and OCass (2004 pp 419ndash 428) quoted that entrepreneurial played
important role in marketing capabilities by entrepreneurs was the mechanism driving or
supporting organization to search for the new market or marketing capabilities and
introducing new products As the owner of business or senior management had the role in
initiating creativities and risk taking in new business operation which aligned with the concept
of Shahid Qureshi (2010) who studied on the relationship and outcomes of entrepreneurial
business strategy and marketing capabilities effect toward the competitive advantage of SMEs
as per the below hypothesis
Entrepreneurial
Marketing Capabilities
Innovation
Competitive Advantage
Business Strategy
H1 H6
H2
H3
H4
H5
H7
H8
373
H1 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward marketing capabilities
Schumpeter (1994) cited the importance of entrepreneurs toward the innovation
development by pointing out that innovation supported the economic growth when
entrepreneurs had created innovation Entrepreneurs had important role toward the success
of innovation development which matched the view of Wingwon (2012 pp1-14) who
mentioned that entrepreneurial strategic decision making and innovation had positive
indirect effect toward the competitive advantage of enterprises through innovation
Furthermore Nelson Jorge Ribeiro Duarte (2010 pp 1-16) concluded the antecedent of
entrepreneurial and business strategy were important toward the competitive advantage
and the sustainable success of organization which in line with the research of Moreno and Jose
casillas (2008 pp507-527) who concluded that entrepreneurial had direct effect toward
business strategy and both factors had relationship toward business success and competitive
advantage of organization at significant level as per the below hypothesis
H2 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward innovation
H3 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward business strategy
42 Marketing Capabilities Concept
Marketing Capability was the mixed process format of knowledge skills with organizational
internal resources which was able to respond to the market demands focus on the value-
added products and services for the organization competitive capability in the market (Vorhies
1988 pp 3-23 Day 1994 pp 37-52) Business was able to be self-development in order to
cope with the customer requirements and competitors including various relevant
environments to solve commercial issues (Tsai and Shih 2004 pp 524-530 Weerawardena
2002 pp 15-36) Business was able to equally share data among all departments in respond
to the marketing demand customer expectation and satisfaction over competitors (Slater and
Narver 1994 pp 46-55) The marketing capabilities supported the competitive advantage of
the organization which leading to larger customers base higher profits (Guenzi and Troilo
2002 pp 974-988 Slater and Narver 2000 pp 120-127 Vorhies 2002 pp 80-94)
In addition the concept of Wingwon (2011 pp 1-10) concluded that innovation
management and shared value had positive effect toward business strategy Morgan Vorhies
and Mason ( 2009 pp 909-92) studied the relationship between marketing capabilities and
competitive advantage of successful enterprises revealed that marketing capabilities had
direct effect toward the competitive advantage of successful enterprises as per below
hypotheses
H4 Marketing capabilities had direct effect toward innovation
H5 Innovation had effect toward business strategy
H2 Marketing capabilities had effect toward competitive advantage
374
43 Innovation Concept
Gibbons (1997 p13) stated that innovation was any new concept or idea in the
organization it could be either on product process or service including the new management
approach and new organizational marketing events which in line with the concept of Hall (1994
pp 19-22) who elaborated that innovation was more than the changing in technology
Innovation consisted of all activities that led to the change and interacted with the developing
or modifying of new technology The common adopted innovation by entrepreneurs in
business competition could be classified into 4 types (Johne 1999 pp 6-11) ie 1) product
and service innovation 2) process innovation 3) marketing innovation and 4) managing
innovation (Urabe Child and Kagono 1988 pp 4-5)
Schumpeter (1950) described innovation as the importance resources in building
competitive advantage had direct effect toward the organization (Damanpour Szabat and
Evan 1989 Han et al 1998) The organization with innovation would have adapted own self
to comply with the changing environment and led to the success with innovation as one of the
important key elements in developing and maintaining competitive capabilities (Damanpour et
al 1989 Han et al 1998) as per the below hypothesis
H7 Innovation had effect toward the competitive advantage
44 Business Strategy Concept
Strategy was plan with specified path or approach for organization to operate in achieving
objectives and targets (Davies 2000 Mintzberg 1996 pp 25-30) with focused on the integrating
and coordinating of the various business environments for the competitive advantage (Porter 1890
1882 1889 Thompson and Strickland 2003) It was the critical elements that entrepreneurs would
have to review in developing business policy strategic plan core value targets and objectives to
enhance organizational capability (Lertpachin 2011 p 5) The concept of McKinseyrsquos 7S Framework
had fundamental concept on efficiency of business derived from the correlation of internal
relevant elements within business ie 1) strategy 2) structure 3) system 4) style 5) staff 6)
skill and 7) shared value (Peters and Waterman 1980)
Duarte (2010) presented that entrepreneurial and business strategy had effect toward
competitive advantage and sustainable success or organization at significant level which aligned
with the concept of Alzal Sawat (2010 pp 87-102) It concluded that marketing capabilities
had effect toward business strategy and both variables had effect toward competitive
advantage and sustainable success or organization as per the below hypothesis
H8 Business strategy had effect toward competitive advantage
45 Competitive Advantage Concept
Porter (1985) described the competitive advantage as the differentiated business value
from competitors created for customers for their satisfactory The generating of competitive
375
advantage consisted of 3 strategic dimensions ie 1) cost leadership strategy was the
competitive strategy which focused on the lowest costs in attracting majority market and in
generating high profits Senior leader applied this strategy in controlling operating costs for
lower than competitors in expanding market shares and in earning higher profits 2)
differentiation strategy was the competitive strategy which focused on the creating of
differences in products in attracting customers to appreciate the outstanding differences
from competitors and 3) focus strategy was the competitive strategy which focused on the
meeting of demands on specific group or area of customers that were often overlooked by other
entrepreneurs It mainly focused on the limited market products or geographic areas
5 Research Methodology
This quantitative research applied survey research concept with 4 scope dimensions ie 1)
Content dimension to study the conceptual framework of entrepreneurial marketing capabilities
innovation business strategy and competitive advantage 2) Population dimension was the SMEs
entrepreneurs from industry commercial and service sectors 3) Area dimension covered 8
provinces in Lanna group ie Chiangrai Chiangmai Lampang Nan Prayao Phrae Lamphun and
Maehongsong 4) Duration dimension covered 8 months period from October 2012 till July 2012
The research tools were questionnaire developed from the literature reviews on 1) Entrepreneurial
was developed from the research works of Miller and Toulouse (1986) and Wingwon (2011) (2)
Marketing capabilities was developed from the research works of Qureshi (2010) and Merriless
Thiele Lye (2011) 3) Innovation was developed from the research works of Drucker (1985) and
Wingwon (2011) 4) Business strategy developed from the research works of McKinseyrsquos 7rsquoS
Framework Peters and Waterman (1982) and 5) Competitive advantage was developed from the
research works of Day and Wensleyrsquos (1988) Porter (1980) and Lee Itsieh (2010) Researcher
applied the 7 levels opinion measurement of Likert scale Population was total 279482 SMErsquos
entrepreneurs in Lanna group (Department of Business Development 2011) applying stratified
random sampling method and proportional selected 500 representative of entrepreneurs from
each province (Office of Small and Medium Enterprises 2010) and received 465 responded
questionnaire representing 93 percent which had been screened for completeness and coded for
research analysis
6 Data Analysis
The research applied descriptive statistics in analysis data to find the percentage means and
standard deviation and inferential statistics to analyze the correlation path in testing of
variables for direct indirect or total effect with SmartPLS program (Ringle Wende and Will
2004) The research tools were measured with Cronbachrsquos Alpha (Lee 1951) eg the value on
entrepreneurial factor was equal to 973 on marketing capabilities factor was 973 on
376
innovation factor was 973 on business strategy was 973 and on competitive advantage was
973
5 Research Summary
Section 1 General profile information of SMEs entrepreneurs
The research outcomes revealed that the majority of total SMEs entrepreneurs from 8
provinces were female in gender with average age between 31-40 years old with
undergraduate educational level and followed by below undergraduate level with business
operation in service sector and followed by in sale distribution representative or commercial
sector with business operation tenure of 1-5 years and followed by 6-10 years with source
of investment from owner finance representing 5140 percents and followed by financial
institution loans representing 4150 percents with majority of business operation at
profitable level representing 5510 percents
Section 2 SMEs entrepreneurs had favorable opinions on all 5 factors at rather high level
ie on entrepreneurial factor with value equal to 519 on marketing capabilities factor with
value equal to 519 on innovation factor with value equal to 485 on business strategy factor
with value equal to 512 and on competitive advantage factor with value equal to 512
Section 3 Outcomes of structural equation model analysis
The outcomes of structural equation model analysis revealed that entrepreneurial factor had
effect toward marketing capabilities with highest coefficient path value equal to 0703 and
with R2 value equal to 0494 and followed by entrepreneurial factor had effect toward
business strategy with coefficient path value equal to 0600 and with R2 value equal to 0479
and lastly entrepreneurial factor had effect toward innovation with coefficient path value
equal to 0477 and with R2 value equal to 0249 The entrepreneurial factor had effect toward
competitive advantage with coefficient path value equal to 0181 and with R2 value equal to
0594
377
Fig 2 Analysis with SmartPLS Program (Ringle Wende and Will 2004)
The marketing capabilities factor had effect toward the competitive advantage with
coefficient path value equal to 0258 and with R2 value equal to 0594 and marketing
capabilities factor had effect toward innovation with coefficient path value equal to 0030 and
with R2 value equal to 0249 The innovation factor had effect toward competitive advantage
with coefficient path value equal to 0029 and with R2 value equal to 0594 and innovation
factor had effect toward business strategy with coefficient path value equal to 0156 and with
R2 value equal to 0479 The business strategy facto had effect toward competitive advantage
with coefficient path value equal to 0568 and with R2 value equal to 059
8 Hypothesis Test
The outcomes of hypothesis test of entrepreneurial marketing capabilities innovation and
business strategy had effect toward competitive advantage of SMEs entrepreneurs at Lanna
group of Thailand could be summarized as follows
Table 2 Outcomes of Direct Indirect and Total Effects
Dependent Variable R2 Effect Antecedent
Entrep Mkt Cap Inno Bus Stra
Compt Ad 0594 DE 0000 0258 0029 0568
IE 0579 0004 0088 0000
TE 0579 0262 0117 0568
Bus Stra 0479 DE 0600 0000 0156 NA
IE 0077 0005 0000 NA
TE 0677 0005 0000 NA
Inno 0249 DE 0477 0030 NA NA
IE 0021 0000 NA NA
TE 0498 0030 NA NA
Mkt Cap 0494 DE 0703 NA NA NA
378
IE 0000 NA NA NA
TE 0703 NA NA NA
Note TE = Total Effect DE = Direct Effect IE = Indirect Effect NA = Not Applicable
Entrep = Entrepreneurial Mkt Cap =Marketing Capabilities Innov =Innovation Bus Stra = Business
Strategy Compt Ad = Competitive Advantage
Table 2 revealed the effect factors had effect on all 4 variables for both direct and indirect
effect toward variables with full details as follows
1 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward marketing capabilities with correlation path
value equal to 0703 and R2 value equal to 0494with direct effect toward innovation with
coefficient path value equal to 0477 and with R2 value equal to 0249 with direct effect
toward business strategy with coefficient path value equal to 0600 and with R2 value equal to
0479 and with indirect effect toward competitive advantage with coefficient path value equal
to 0579 and with R2 value equal to 0594
2 Marketing capabilities had direct effect toward innovation with coefficient path value
equal to 0030 with R2 value equal to 0249 with indirect effect toward business strategy with
coefficient path value equal to 0005 with R2 value equal to 0479 with direct effect toward
competitive advantage with coefficient path value equal to 0258 and with indirect effect
toward competitive advantage with coefficient path value equal to 0004 and with R2 value
equal to 0594
3 Innovation had direct effect toward business strategy with coefficient path value equal to
0156 with R2 value equal to 0479 with direct effect toward competitive advantage with
coefficient path value equal to 0029 and with R2 value equal to 0594 with indirect effect
toward competitive advantage with coefficient path value equal to 0088 and with R2 value
equal to 0594
4 Business strategy had direct effect toward competitive advantage with coefficient path
value equal to 0568 and with R2 value equal to 0594
Table 3 Outcomes of Hypothesis Test
Research Hypothesis Coef t-stat Outcomes
H1 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Marketing Capabilities
0702 848 Supported
H2 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Innovation 0477 442 Supported
H2 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Business Strategy 0600 1147 Supported
379
H4 Marketing Capabilities had direct effect toward Innovation 0029 024 Not Supported
H2 Innovation had effect toward Business Strategy 0156 196 Supported
H2 Marketing Capability had effect toward Competitive Advantage 0257 226 Supported
H7 Innovation had effect toward Competitive Advantage 0028 105 Not Supported
H9 Business Strategy had effect toward Competitive Advantage 0568 582 Supported
Remark t-stat ge 182 indicated that hypothesis with statistical significance at 005 level
Table 3 revealed outcomes of hypothesis test which could be summarized as follows
Hypothesis 1 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Marketing Capabilities
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that entrepreneurial had direct effect toward
marketing capabilities with coefficient path value equal to 0702 and with t-stat value equal
to 848 which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 2 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Innovation
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that entrepreneurial had direct effect toward
innovation with coefficient path value equal to 0477 and with t-state value equal to 442
which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 3 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Business Strategy
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that entrepreneurial had direct effect toward
business strategy at coefficient path value equal to 0600 and with t-state value equal to 1147
which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 4 Marketing Capabilities had direct effect toward Innovation
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that marketing capabilities had direct effect toward
innovation with coefficient path value equal to 0029 and t-stat value equal to 024 which not
supported by hypothesis
Hypothesis 5 Innovation had direct effect toward Business Strategy
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that innovation had direct effect toward business
strategy at coefficient path value equal to 0156 and with t-state value equal to 196 which
supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 6 Marketing Capabilities had effect toward Competitive Advantage
380
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that marketing capabilities had direct effect toward
competitive advantage at coefficient path value equal to 0257 and with t-state value equal
to 226 which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 7 Innovation had effect toward Competitive Advantage
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that innovation had direct effect toward competitive
advantage with coefficient path value equal to 0028 and t-stat value equal to 105 which not
supported by hypothesis
Hypothesis 8 Business Strategy had effect toward Competitive Advantage
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that business strategy had direct effect toward
competitive advantage at coefficient path value equal to 0568 and with t-state value equal
to 582 which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Table 4 Outcomes of Composite Reliability Analysis
Construct CR AVE R2 Construct
Entrep Mkt Cap Inno Bus Stra Compt Ad
Entrep 0935 0534 - 0730
Mkt Cap 0936 0620 0494 0743 0790
Inno 0964 0731 0248 0678 0614 0855
Bus Stra 0942 0645 0478 0455 0381 0498 0803
Compt Ad 0942 0700 0594 0626 0624 0702 0365 0837
Note CR = composite reliability AVE = Average Variance Extracted
Entrep = Entrepreneurial Mkt Cap = Marketing Capabilities Innov = Innovation Bus Stra =Business
Strategy
Compt Ad = Competitive Advantage
Table 4 revealed the composite reliability value of every variable and with AVE value higher
than 050 which indicated that all questions of each indicator were able to measure the value
with reliability and coefficient value of each individual indicator within the same variable had
higher coefficient value than coefficient of the different variable It indicated that
measurement of each construct was able to effectively measure own context which
confirmed its composite reliability
381
9 Research Outcomes Discussion
The majority of SMEs entrepreneurs in Lanna group of Thailand were female in
gender with average age between 31-40 years old which in line with the study of Silverstein
and Sayre (2009 pp 48-90) who stated that female entrepreneurs were more delicate
tolerate and determine in managing business than male in certain situation with particular
on the task which had to deal with relationship with others of both internal and external
organization It could be quoted that lady would be the driver of modern economy which
aligned with the concept of Zimmerer and Scarborough (2002 pp 15-19) who described the
element of entrepreneurs as working group of 30 years old and over with undergraduate
educational level with well living standard with determination in managing business risks
with vision and determination in learning and managing business with business operation in
service sector and followed with the sale distribution representative or commercial sector
with duration in business operation of 1-5 years and followed with 6-10 years with majority
of capital investment from owner private fund with business operation at profitable level and
followed with continued business growth
The majority of SMErsquos entrepreneurs had rather high entrepreneurial marketing
capabilities innovation business strategy which aligned with the concept of Shahid Qureshi
(2010) who discovered that entrepreneurial business strategy and marketing capability had
effect toward the success of enterprises The research outcomes of Wingwon (2012 pp 1-
14) summarized that entrepreneurial strategic decision making and innovation had positive
effect toward competitive advantage of small and medium enterprises by entrepreneurial
had indirect effect toward the competitive advantage of SMEs through innovation Lastly the
competitive advantage had rather high importance as it consisted of the creating of
differentiation cost leadership and focus on core business which matched with the concept
of Barney (1991 pp 99-120) which stated that competitive advantage as perceived by
customers was the higher value of products or services over competitors which could not be
substituted or compared against other offers and with higher switching costs When
comparing the performance outcomes with competitive advantage it revealed the marketing
advantage price competitiveness lower discount than competitors high quality of products
or services durability and innovation
The outcomes of structural equation model revealed that entrepreneurial had direct
effect toward marketing capability which demonstrated that entrepreneurial was the
supporting mechanism for organization in searching for new market and in introducing new
products in market and generated the marketing capability (Liu Luo and Shi 2002 pp 367-
382) It also played the critical role in product and service development (Kerin 1992 pp 331-
334) by applying entrepreneurial as the owner role in creative thinking and risk taking in
operating new business Therefore entrepreneurial had important role for leading the
organization toward marketing capabilities
382
Furthermore entrepreneurial had direct effect toward business strategy which confirmed
with the study of Wingwon (2007) which summarized that entrepreneurship risk
management inspiration and determination of staff and relevant stakeholders It included
the business capacity in operating future business (Wingwon 2007 p 49) with flexibility in
modifying target strategy and proactive operation in order to cope with the evolved changing
environment The research study pointed out the importance of business strategy of SMEs
that supported the SMErsquos sustainability and competitive advantage (Chen and Hambrick 1995
Hitt et al 1991 Storey 1994)
In addition entrepreneurial had direct effect toward innovation with aligned with the
concept of Schumpeter (1994) who quoted the importance of entrepreneurs in innovation
development He pointed out that innovation would assist the economic growth Hence
entrepreneurs had important role in developing innovation and it would in turn assisted
entrepreneurs in achieving business success
Lastly entrepreneurial had indirect effect toward competitive advantage through
marketing capabilities innovation and business strategy which conformed with research work
of Jia ndash Sheng Lee Chia-Jung Hsich (2010) It revealed that entrepreneurial had direct effect
toward marketing capabilities ability in creating innovation sustainable competitive
advantage and entrepreneurial had indirect effect toward sustainable competitive advantage
through marketing capabilities and innovation capability Shahid Qureshi (2010) had also
concluded that entrepreneurial business strategy marketing capability had effect toward
the success of SMEs
10 Research Recommendations
1 The study of entrepreneurial by applying different sampling groups with larger sampling
size The study should cover the large enterprises for comparison on the perception of
entrepreneurial of SMEs against the large enterprises
2 Government sector ought to fully aware and support the knowledge learning on
innovation development on continuous basis for entrepreneurs to applying such knowledge in
supporting competitive advantage and leading the economic development of the country as a
whole
11 References
Ana M M amp Jos C (2008) Entrepreneurial Orientation and Growth of SMEs A Causal
Model Entrepreneurship Theory
Afzal S (2010) Marketing capability strategy and business performance in emerging markets
of Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities 7(2)
Barney J ( 1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage Journal of
Management 17(1) 99ndash120
383
Bougheas S Mizen P amp Yalcin C (2004) Access to External Finance Theory and Evidence
on the Impact of Firm-Specific Characteristic Research Department Working Paper 4 6
Bannock G ( 2005) Economics and Management of Small Business An International
Perspective London Routledge
Boone L E amp Kurtz D L (2010) Contemporary Business (13th ed) New York John Wiley amp Sons
Bygrave W D amp Hofer C W ( 1991) Theorizing about Entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice 16(2) 13
Casey D (1996) Managing Learning Organizations Buckingham Open University Press
Covin J G amp Slevin D P (1991) A Conceptual Model of Entrepreneurship as Firm Behavior
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 16 7-25
Chen M amp Hambrick D C (1995) Speed stealth and selective attach How small firms
differ from large firms in competitive behavior Academy of Management Journal 38(2)
453ndash482
Cronbach L J (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests Psychometrika 16 297-
334
Department of Business Development (2011) Department of Business Development Annual
Report 2011 Bangkok Department of Business Development Ministry of Commerce
Drucker E P (1985) The discipline of innovation Harvard Business Review 67-72
Damanpour F Szabat K A amp Evan W M ( 1989) The relationship between types of
innovation and organizational performance Journal of Management Studies 26(6) 587-
601
Davies W (2000) Derstanding Strategy Strategy and Leadership 28(5) 25-30
Gibbons A ( 1997) Innovation and the Developing System of Knowledge Production University of
Sussex
Guenzi P amp Troilo G (2006) Developing marketing capabilities for customer value creation
through marketing-sales integration Industrial Marketing Management 35(8) 974-988
Hall Peter ( 1994) Innovation Economics amp Evolution Theoretical Perspectives on Changing
Technology in Economic Systems New York Harvester Wheat sheaf
Hitt M A Hoskisson R E amp Harrison J S (1991) Strategic competitiveness in the 1990s
Challenges and opportunities for US executives Academy of Management Executive 5(2) 7ndash
22
384
Han JK Kim N Srivastava R ( 1998) Market orientation and organizational
performanceIs innovation a missing link Journal of Marketing 62 (4) 30-45
Johne A ( 1999) Successful market innovation European Journal of Innovation Management 2
6-11
Jiamjittrong V (2010) Effect of Entrepreneurial toward Business Performance of SMEs Public
Administration Doctorate Degree National Institute of Development Administration
Jia-Sheng Lee amp Chia-Jung Hsieh ( 2 0 1 0 ) A Research in Relating Entrepreneurship
Marketing Capability Innovative Capability and Sustained Competitive Advantage EABR
amp ETLC Conference Proceedings Dublin Ireland
Lertpachin C ( 2 011) Strategy for Modern Entrepreneurs amidst ASEAN Economics
Community Environment Social Sciences Journal Faculty of Social Sciences Chiangrai
Rajabhat University
Liu S X Luo amp Y Shi (2002) Integrating Customer Orientation Corporate
Entrepreneurship and Learning Orientation in Organization-in-Transition an Empirical
Study Internal Journal of Research in Marketing 19 367-382
Mintzberg H ( 1996) Five Ps for Strategy In ProcessndashConcepts Contexts and Cases
Mintzberg H and Quinn Jn Eds Upper Saddle River New Jersey Prentice Hall
Michael J S amp Kate S (2009) The female economy Harvard business review September
2009
Nelson Jorge Ribeiro Duarte (2010) The Role of Firms and Entrepreneurship on Local
Development in the egion of Vale Do Sousa Francisco Joseacute Lopes de Sousa Diniz
Neil A Morgan D W Vorhies amp Charlotte H M (2009) Market Orientation Marketing
Capabilities and Firm Performance Strategic Management Journal 30 909ndash920
Nelson J amp Ribeiro D (2010) The Role of Firms and Entrepreneurship on Local Development
in the egion of Vale Do Sousa Francisco Joseacute Lopes de Sousa Diniz
Office of Small and Medium Enterprises (2010) Small and Medium Enterprises Status Report
2010 and Trend 2011 Bangkok Office of Small and Medium Enterprises
Porter M E (1980) Competitive Strategy New York The Free Press
Porter ME (1996) What is strategy Harvard Business Review 74(6) 61-78
Porter M E (1985) Competitive Strategy Techniques for Analyzing Industries and
Competitors New York The Free Press
385
Porter M E (1998) Competitive Strategy Techniques for Analyzing Industries and
Competitors (1st ed) Illinois The Free Press
Porter M E (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations New York The Free Press
Robert W Thomas J P amp Julien R P ( 1980) Structure is not organization Business
Horizons 23(3) 14-26
Ringle C M Wende S amp Will A ( 2004) Smart PLS 20 ( M3) Germany University of
Hambury
Saengtienchom C (2012) SMEs and Country Economy [Online] Available
wwwrtcacthwww_km020220024_2-2553pdf [2555 March 10]
Schumpeter J (1994) A History of Economic Analysis London Routledge
Schumpeter J A ( 1950) Capitalism socialism and democracy (3rd ed) New York Harper and
Row
Shahid Q (2011) Antecedents and outcomes of entrepreneurial firms marketing capabilities
An empirical investigation of small technology based firm Journal of Strategic Innovation
and Sustainability 6(4)
Slater S F amp Narver J C (1994) Does Competitive Environment Moderate the Market
Orientation-Performance Relationship Journal of Marketing 58 46-55
Saito K A amp Villanueva D P (1981) Transaction costs of credit to the small-scale sector in
philippines Economic Development and Cultural Change 29(3) 631-640
Sertvanich K (2005) Must Correct SMEs Filature Bangkok C-Education
Tsai M T amp Shih C M (2004) The impact of marketing knowledge among managers on
marketing capabilities and business performance International Journal of Management
21(4) 524-530
Thompson A A amp Strickland A J (2003) Strategic Management Concepts and Case (11th ed)
New York McGraw-Hill
Urabe K Child J amp Kagono T ( 1 9 8 8 ) Innovation and Management International
Comparisons The concept of fit in contingency theory Berlin Walter de Gruyter amp Co
Vorhies D W (1998) An investigation of the factors leading to the development of marketing
capabilities and organizational effectiveness Journal of Strategic Marketing 6(1) 3-23
Weerawardena J (2003) The role of marketing capability in innovation ndash Based competitive
strategy Journal of Strategy Marketing 11 15-35
386
Weerawardena J O Cass A amp Julian C (2002) lsquoDoes industry matter Examining the role
of industry structure in innovation-based competitive marketing strategy Journal of
Business Research 59 37-45
Wingwon B ( 2007) SMEs Business Management Department of General Management
Faculty of Management Science Lampang Rajabhat University
Wingwon B (2011) Antecedents and Outcomes of Business Strategy for SMEs
Entrepreneurs in Northern Region Faculty of Management Science Lampang Rajabhat
University
Wingwon B (2012) Effects of entrepreneurship organization capability strategic decision
making and innovation toward the competitive advantage of SMEs enterprises Journal of
Management and Sustainability 2(1) 78-93
Zimmerer T W amp Scarborough N M (2002) Essentials of Entrepreneurship and Small
Business Management (4thed) New Jersey Prentice-Hall
373
H1 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward marketing capabilities
Schumpeter (1994) cited the importance of entrepreneurs toward the innovation
development by pointing out that innovation supported the economic growth when
entrepreneurs had created innovation Entrepreneurs had important role toward the success
of innovation development which matched the view of Wingwon (2012 pp1-14) who
mentioned that entrepreneurial strategic decision making and innovation had positive
indirect effect toward the competitive advantage of enterprises through innovation
Furthermore Nelson Jorge Ribeiro Duarte (2010 pp 1-16) concluded the antecedent of
entrepreneurial and business strategy were important toward the competitive advantage
and the sustainable success of organization which in line with the research of Moreno and Jose
casillas (2008 pp507-527) who concluded that entrepreneurial had direct effect toward
business strategy and both factors had relationship toward business success and competitive
advantage of organization at significant level as per the below hypothesis
H2 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward innovation
H3 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward business strategy
42 Marketing Capabilities Concept
Marketing Capability was the mixed process format of knowledge skills with organizational
internal resources which was able to respond to the market demands focus on the value-
added products and services for the organization competitive capability in the market (Vorhies
1988 pp 3-23 Day 1994 pp 37-52) Business was able to be self-development in order to
cope with the customer requirements and competitors including various relevant
environments to solve commercial issues (Tsai and Shih 2004 pp 524-530 Weerawardena
2002 pp 15-36) Business was able to equally share data among all departments in respond
to the marketing demand customer expectation and satisfaction over competitors (Slater and
Narver 1994 pp 46-55) The marketing capabilities supported the competitive advantage of
the organization which leading to larger customers base higher profits (Guenzi and Troilo
2002 pp 974-988 Slater and Narver 2000 pp 120-127 Vorhies 2002 pp 80-94)
In addition the concept of Wingwon (2011 pp 1-10) concluded that innovation
management and shared value had positive effect toward business strategy Morgan Vorhies
and Mason ( 2009 pp 909-92) studied the relationship between marketing capabilities and
competitive advantage of successful enterprises revealed that marketing capabilities had
direct effect toward the competitive advantage of successful enterprises as per below
hypotheses
H4 Marketing capabilities had direct effect toward innovation
H5 Innovation had effect toward business strategy
H2 Marketing capabilities had effect toward competitive advantage
374
43 Innovation Concept
Gibbons (1997 p13) stated that innovation was any new concept or idea in the
organization it could be either on product process or service including the new management
approach and new organizational marketing events which in line with the concept of Hall (1994
pp 19-22) who elaborated that innovation was more than the changing in technology
Innovation consisted of all activities that led to the change and interacted with the developing
or modifying of new technology The common adopted innovation by entrepreneurs in
business competition could be classified into 4 types (Johne 1999 pp 6-11) ie 1) product
and service innovation 2) process innovation 3) marketing innovation and 4) managing
innovation (Urabe Child and Kagono 1988 pp 4-5)
Schumpeter (1950) described innovation as the importance resources in building
competitive advantage had direct effect toward the organization (Damanpour Szabat and
Evan 1989 Han et al 1998) The organization with innovation would have adapted own self
to comply with the changing environment and led to the success with innovation as one of the
important key elements in developing and maintaining competitive capabilities (Damanpour et
al 1989 Han et al 1998) as per the below hypothesis
H7 Innovation had effect toward the competitive advantage
44 Business Strategy Concept
Strategy was plan with specified path or approach for organization to operate in achieving
objectives and targets (Davies 2000 Mintzberg 1996 pp 25-30) with focused on the integrating
and coordinating of the various business environments for the competitive advantage (Porter 1890
1882 1889 Thompson and Strickland 2003) It was the critical elements that entrepreneurs would
have to review in developing business policy strategic plan core value targets and objectives to
enhance organizational capability (Lertpachin 2011 p 5) The concept of McKinseyrsquos 7S Framework
had fundamental concept on efficiency of business derived from the correlation of internal
relevant elements within business ie 1) strategy 2) structure 3) system 4) style 5) staff 6)
skill and 7) shared value (Peters and Waterman 1980)
Duarte (2010) presented that entrepreneurial and business strategy had effect toward
competitive advantage and sustainable success or organization at significant level which aligned
with the concept of Alzal Sawat (2010 pp 87-102) It concluded that marketing capabilities
had effect toward business strategy and both variables had effect toward competitive
advantage and sustainable success or organization as per the below hypothesis
H8 Business strategy had effect toward competitive advantage
45 Competitive Advantage Concept
Porter (1985) described the competitive advantage as the differentiated business value
from competitors created for customers for their satisfactory The generating of competitive
375
advantage consisted of 3 strategic dimensions ie 1) cost leadership strategy was the
competitive strategy which focused on the lowest costs in attracting majority market and in
generating high profits Senior leader applied this strategy in controlling operating costs for
lower than competitors in expanding market shares and in earning higher profits 2)
differentiation strategy was the competitive strategy which focused on the creating of
differences in products in attracting customers to appreciate the outstanding differences
from competitors and 3) focus strategy was the competitive strategy which focused on the
meeting of demands on specific group or area of customers that were often overlooked by other
entrepreneurs It mainly focused on the limited market products or geographic areas
5 Research Methodology
This quantitative research applied survey research concept with 4 scope dimensions ie 1)
Content dimension to study the conceptual framework of entrepreneurial marketing capabilities
innovation business strategy and competitive advantage 2) Population dimension was the SMEs
entrepreneurs from industry commercial and service sectors 3) Area dimension covered 8
provinces in Lanna group ie Chiangrai Chiangmai Lampang Nan Prayao Phrae Lamphun and
Maehongsong 4) Duration dimension covered 8 months period from October 2012 till July 2012
The research tools were questionnaire developed from the literature reviews on 1) Entrepreneurial
was developed from the research works of Miller and Toulouse (1986) and Wingwon (2011) (2)
Marketing capabilities was developed from the research works of Qureshi (2010) and Merriless
Thiele Lye (2011) 3) Innovation was developed from the research works of Drucker (1985) and
Wingwon (2011) 4) Business strategy developed from the research works of McKinseyrsquos 7rsquoS
Framework Peters and Waterman (1982) and 5) Competitive advantage was developed from the
research works of Day and Wensleyrsquos (1988) Porter (1980) and Lee Itsieh (2010) Researcher
applied the 7 levels opinion measurement of Likert scale Population was total 279482 SMErsquos
entrepreneurs in Lanna group (Department of Business Development 2011) applying stratified
random sampling method and proportional selected 500 representative of entrepreneurs from
each province (Office of Small and Medium Enterprises 2010) and received 465 responded
questionnaire representing 93 percent which had been screened for completeness and coded for
research analysis
6 Data Analysis
The research applied descriptive statistics in analysis data to find the percentage means and
standard deviation and inferential statistics to analyze the correlation path in testing of
variables for direct indirect or total effect with SmartPLS program (Ringle Wende and Will
2004) The research tools were measured with Cronbachrsquos Alpha (Lee 1951) eg the value on
entrepreneurial factor was equal to 973 on marketing capabilities factor was 973 on
376
innovation factor was 973 on business strategy was 973 and on competitive advantage was
973
5 Research Summary
Section 1 General profile information of SMEs entrepreneurs
The research outcomes revealed that the majority of total SMEs entrepreneurs from 8
provinces were female in gender with average age between 31-40 years old with
undergraduate educational level and followed by below undergraduate level with business
operation in service sector and followed by in sale distribution representative or commercial
sector with business operation tenure of 1-5 years and followed by 6-10 years with source
of investment from owner finance representing 5140 percents and followed by financial
institution loans representing 4150 percents with majority of business operation at
profitable level representing 5510 percents
Section 2 SMEs entrepreneurs had favorable opinions on all 5 factors at rather high level
ie on entrepreneurial factor with value equal to 519 on marketing capabilities factor with
value equal to 519 on innovation factor with value equal to 485 on business strategy factor
with value equal to 512 and on competitive advantage factor with value equal to 512
Section 3 Outcomes of structural equation model analysis
The outcomes of structural equation model analysis revealed that entrepreneurial factor had
effect toward marketing capabilities with highest coefficient path value equal to 0703 and
with R2 value equal to 0494 and followed by entrepreneurial factor had effect toward
business strategy with coefficient path value equal to 0600 and with R2 value equal to 0479
and lastly entrepreneurial factor had effect toward innovation with coefficient path value
equal to 0477 and with R2 value equal to 0249 The entrepreneurial factor had effect toward
competitive advantage with coefficient path value equal to 0181 and with R2 value equal to
0594
377
Fig 2 Analysis with SmartPLS Program (Ringle Wende and Will 2004)
The marketing capabilities factor had effect toward the competitive advantage with
coefficient path value equal to 0258 and with R2 value equal to 0594 and marketing
capabilities factor had effect toward innovation with coefficient path value equal to 0030 and
with R2 value equal to 0249 The innovation factor had effect toward competitive advantage
with coefficient path value equal to 0029 and with R2 value equal to 0594 and innovation
factor had effect toward business strategy with coefficient path value equal to 0156 and with
R2 value equal to 0479 The business strategy facto had effect toward competitive advantage
with coefficient path value equal to 0568 and with R2 value equal to 059
8 Hypothesis Test
The outcomes of hypothesis test of entrepreneurial marketing capabilities innovation and
business strategy had effect toward competitive advantage of SMEs entrepreneurs at Lanna
group of Thailand could be summarized as follows
Table 2 Outcomes of Direct Indirect and Total Effects
Dependent Variable R2 Effect Antecedent
Entrep Mkt Cap Inno Bus Stra
Compt Ad 0594 DE 0000 0258 0029 0568
IE 0579 0004 0088 0000
TE 0579 0262 0117 0568
Bus Stra 0479 DE 0600 0000 0156 NA
IE 0077 0005 0000 NA
TE 0677 0005 0000 NA
Inno 0249 DE 0477 0030 NA NA
IE 0021 0000 NA NA
TE 0498 0030 NA NA
Mkt Cap 0494 DE 0703 NA NA NA
378
IE 0000 NA NA NA
TE 0703 NA NA NA
Note TE = Total Effect DE = Direct Effect IE = Indirect Effect NA = Not Applicable
Entrep = Entrepreneurial Mkt Cap =Marketing Capabilities Innov =Innovation Bus Stra = Business
Strategy Compt Ad = Competitive Advantage
Table 2 revealed the effect factors had effect on all 4 variables for both direct and indirect
effect toward variables with full details as follows
1 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward marketing capabilities with correlation path
value equal to 0703 and R2 value equal to 0494with direct effect toward innovation with
coefficient path value equal to 0477 and with R2 value equal to 0249 with direct effect
toward business strategy with coefficient path value equal to 0600 and with R2 value equal to
0479 and with indirect effect toward competitive advantage with coefficient path value equal
to 0579 and with R2 value equal to 0594
2 Marketing capabilities had direct effect toward innovation with coefficient path value
equal to 0030 with R2 value equal to 0249 with indirect effect toward business strategy with
coefficient path value equal to 0005 with R2 value equal to 0479 with direct effect toward
competitive advantage with coefficient path value equal to 0258 and with indirect effect
toward competitive advantage with coefficient path value equal to 0004 and with R2 value
equal to 0594
3 Innovation had direct effect toward business strategy with coefficient path value equal to
0156 with R2 value equal to 0479 with direct effect toward competitive advantage with
coefficient path value equal to 0029 and with R2 value equal to 0594 with indirect effect
toward competitive advantage with coefficient path value equal to 0088 and with R2 value
equal to 0594
4 Business strategy had direct effect toward competitive advantage with coefficient path
value equal to 0568 and with R2 value equal to 0594
Table 3 Outcomes of Hypothesis Test
Research Hypothesis Coef t-stat Outcomes
H1 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Marketing Capabilities
0702 848 Supported
H2 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Innovation 0477 442 Supported
H2 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Business Strategy 0600 1147 Supported
379
H4 Marketing Capabilities had direct effect toward Innovation 0029 024 Not Supported
H2 Innovation had effect toward Business Strategy 0156 196 Supported
H2 Marketing Capability had effect toward Competitive Advantage 0257 226 Supported
H7 Innovation had effect toward Competitive Advantage 0028 105 Not Supported
H9 Business Strategy had effect toward Competitive Advantage 0568 582 Supported
Remark t-stat ge 182 indicated that hypothesis with statistical significance at 005 level
Table 3 revealed outcomes of hypothesis test which could be summarized as follows
Hypothesis 1 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Marketing Capabilities
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that entrepreneurial had direct effect toward
marketing capabilities with coefficient path value equal to 0702 and with t-stat value equal
to 848 which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 2 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Innovation
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that entrepreneurial had direct effect toward
innovation with coefficient path value equal to 0477 and with t-state value equal to 442
which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 3 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Business Strategy
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that entrepreneurial had direct effect toward
business strategy at coefficient path value equal to 0600 and with t-state value equal to 1147
which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 4 Marketing Capabilities had direct effect toward Innovation
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that marketing capabilities had direct effect toward
innovation with coefficient path value equal to 0029 and t-stat value equal to 024 which not
supported by hypothesis
Hypothesis 5 Innovation had direct effect toward Business Strategy
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that innovation had direct effect toward business
strategy at coefficient path value equal to 0156 and with t-state value equal to 196 which
supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 6 Marketing Capabilities had effect toward Competitive Advantage
380
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that marketing capabilities had direct effect toward
competitive advantage at coefficient path value equal to 0257 and with t-state value equal
to 226 which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 7 Innovation had effect toward Competitive Advantage
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that innovation had direct effect toward competitive
advantage with coefficient path value equal to 0028 and t-stat value equal to 105 which not
supported by hypothesis
Hypothesis 8 Business Strategy had effect toward Competitive Advantage
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that business strategy had direct effect toward
competitive advantage at coefficient path value equal to 0568 and with t-state value equal
to 582 which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Table 4 Outcomes of Composite Reliability Analysis
Construct CR AVE R2 Construct
Entrep Mkt Cap Inno Bus Stra Compt Ad
Entrep 0935 0534 - 0730
Mkt Cap 0936 0620 0494 0743 0790
Inno 0964 0731 0248 0678 0614 0855
Bus Stra 0942 0645 0478 0455 0381 0498 0803
Compt Ad 0942 0700 0594 0626 0624 0702 0365 0837
Note CR = composite reliability AVE = Average Variance Extracted
Entrep = Entrepreneurial Mkt Cap = Marketing Capabilities Innov = Innovation Bus Stra =Business
Strategy
Compt Ad = Competitive Advantage
Table 4 revealed the composite reliability value of every variable and with AVE value higher
than 050 which indicated that all questions of each indicator were able to measure the value
with reliability and coefficient value of each individual indicator within the same variable had
higher coefficient value than coefficient of the different variable It indicated that
measurement of each construct was able to effectively measure own context which
confirmed its composite reliability
381
9 Research Outcomes Discussion
The majority of SMEs entrepreneurs in Lanna group of Thailand were female in
gender with average age between 31-40 years old which in line with the study of Silverstein
and Sayre (2009 pp 48-90) who stated that female entrepreneurs were more delicate
tolerate and determine in managing business than male in certain situation with particular
on the task which had to deal with relationship with others of both internal and external
organization It could be quoted that lady would be the driver of modern economy which
aligned with the concept of Zimmerer and Scarborough (2002 pp 15-19) who described the
element of entrepreneurs as working group of 30 years old and over with undergraduate
educational level with well living standard with determination in managing business risks
with vision and determination in learning and managing business with business operation in
service sector and followed with the sale distribution representative or commercial sector
with duration in business operation of 1-5 years and followed with 6-10 years with majority
of capital investment from owner private fund with business operation at profitable level and
followed with continued business growth
The majority of SMErsquos entrepreneurs had rather high entrepreneurial marketing
capabilities innovation business strategy which aligned with the concept of Shahid Qureshi
(2010) who discovered that entrepreneurial business strategy and marketing capability had
effect toward the success of enterprises The research outcomes of Wingwon (2012 pp 1-
14) summarized that entrepreneurial strategic decision making and innovation had positive
effect toward competitive advantage of small and medium enterprises by entrepreneurial
had indirect effect toward the competitive advantage of SMEs through innovation Lastly the
competitive advantage had rather high importance as it consisted of the creating of
differentiation cost leadership and focus on core business which matched with the concept
of Barney (1991 pp 99-120) which stated that competitive advantage as perceived by
customers was the higher value of products or services over competitors which could not be
substituted or compared against other offers and with higher switching costs When
comparing the performance outcomes with competitive advantage it revealed the marketing
advantage price competitiveness lower discount than competitors high quality of products
or services durability and innovation
The outcomes of structural equation model revealed that entrepreneurial had direct
effect toward marketing capability which demonstrated that entrepreneurial was the
supporting mechanism for organization in searching for new market and in introducing new
products in market and generated the marketing capability (Liu Luo and Shi 2002 pp 367-
382) It also played the critical role in product and service development (Kerin 1992 pp 331-
334) by applying entrepreneurial as the owner role in creative thinking and risk taking in
operating new business Therefore entrepreneurial had important role for leading the
organization toward marketing capabilities
382
Furthermore entrepreneurial had direct effect toward business strategy which confirmed
with the study of Wingwon (2007) which summarized that entrepreneurship risk
management inspiration and determination of staff and relevant stakeholders It included
the business capacity in operating future business (Wingwon 2007 p 49) with flexibility in
modifying target strategy and proactive operation in order to cope with the evolved changing
environment The research study pointed out the importance of business strategy of SMEs
that supported the SMErsquos sustainability and competitive advantage (Chen and Hambrick 1995
Hitt et al 1991 Storey 1994)
In addition entrepreneurial had direct effect toward innovation with aligned with the
concept of Schumpeter (1994) who quoted the importance of entrepreneurs in innovation
development He pointed out that innovation would assist the economic growth Hence
entrepreneurs had important role in developing innovation and it would in turn assisted
entrepreneurs in achieving business success
Lastly entrepreneurial had indirect effect toward competitive advantage through
marketing capabilities innovation and business strategy which conformed with research work
of Jia ndash Sheng Lee Chia-Jung Hsich (2010) It revealed that entrepreneurial had direct effect
toward marketing capabilities ability in creating innovation sustainable competitive
advantage and entrepreneurial had indirect effect toward sustainable competitive advantage
through marketing capabilities and innovation capability Shahid Qureshi (2010) had also
concluded that entrepreneurial business strategy marketing capability had effect toward
the success of SMEs
10 Research Recommendations
1 The study of entrepreneurial by applying different sampling groups with larger sampling
size The study should cover the large enterprises for comparison on the perception of
entrepreneurial of SMEs against the large enterprises
2 Government sector ought to fully aware and support the knowledge learning on
innovation development on continuous basis for entrepreneurs to applying such knowledge in
supporting competitive advantage and leading the economic development of the country as a
whole
11 References
Ana M M amp Jos C (2008) Entrepreneurial Orientation and Growth of SMEs A Causal
Model Entrepreneurship Theory
Afzal S (2010) Marketing capability strategy and business performance in emerging markets
of Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities 7(2)
Barney J ( 1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage Journal of
Management 17(1) 99ndash120
383
Bougheas S Mizen P amp Yalcin C (2004) Access to External Finance Theory and Evidence
on the Impact of Firm-Specific Characteristic Research Department Working Paper 4 6
Bannock G ( 2005) Economics and Management of Small Business An International
Perspective London Routledge
Boone L E amp Kurtz D L (2010) Contemporary Business (13th ed) New York John Wiley amp Sons
Bygrave W D amp Hofer C W ( 1991) Theorizing about Entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice 16(2) 13
Casey D (1996) Managing Learning Organizations Buckingham Open University Press
Covin J G amp Slevin D P (1991) A Conceptual Model of Entrepreneurship as Firm Behavior
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 16 7-25
Chen M amp Hambrick D C (1995) Speed stealth and selective attach How small firms
differ from large firms in competitive behavior Academy of Management Journal 38(2)
453ndash482
Cronbach L J (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests Psychometrika 16 297-
334
Department of Business Development (2011) Department of Business Development Annual
Report 2011 Bangkok Department of Business Development Ministry of Commerce
Drucker E P (1985) The discipline of innovation Harvard Business Review 67-72
Damanpour F Szabat K A amp Evan W M ( 1989) The relationship between types of
innovation and organizational performance Journal of Management Studies 26(6) 587-
601
Davies W (2000) Derstanding Strategy Strategy and Leadership 28(5) 25-30
Gibbons A ( 1997) Innovation and the Developing System of Knowledge Production University of
Sussex
Guenzi P amp Troilo G (2006) Developing marketing capabilities for customer value creation
through marketing-sales integration Industrial Marketing Management 35(8) 974-988
Hall Peter ( 1994) Innovation Economics amp Evolution Theoretical Perspectives on Changing
Technology in Economic Systems New York Harvester Wheat sheaf
Hitt M A Hoskisson R E amp Harrison J S (1991) Strategic competitiveness in the 1990s
Challenges and opportunities for US executives Academy of Management Executive 5(2) 7ndash
22
384
Han JK Kim N Srivastava R ( 1998) Market orientation and organizational
performanceIs innovation a missing link Journal of Marketing 62 (4) 30-45
Johne A ( 1999) Successful market innovation European Journal of Innovation Management 2
6-11
Jiamjittrong V (2010) Effect of Entrepreneurial toward Business Performance of SMEs Public
Administration Doctorate Degree National Institute of Development Administration
Jia-Sheng Lee amp Chia-Jung Hsieh ( 2 0 1 0 ) A Research in Relating Entrepreneurship
Marketing Capability Innovative Capability and Sustained Competitive Advantage EABR
amp ETLC Conference Proceedings Dublin Ireland
Lertpachin C ( 2 011) Strategy for Modern Entrepreneurs amidst ASEAN Economics
Community Environment Social Sciences Journal Faculty of Social Sciences Chiangrai
Rajabhat University
Liu S X Luo amp Y Shi (2002) Integrating Customer Orientation Corporate
Entrepreneurship and Learning Orientation in Organization-in-Transition an Empirical
Study Internal Journal of Research in Marketing 19 367-382
Mintzberg H ( 1996) Five Ps for Strategy In ProcessndashConcepts Contexts and Cases
Mintzberg H and Quinn Jn Eds Upper Saddle River New Jersey Prentice Hall
Michael J S amp Kate S (2009) The female economy Harvard business review September
2009
Nelson Jorge Ribeiro Duarte (2010) The Role of Firms and Entrepreneurship on Local
Development in the egion of Vale Do Sousa Francisco Joseacute Lopes de Sousa Diniz
Neil A Morgan D W Vorhies amp Charlotte H M (2009) Market Orientation Marketing
Capabilities and Firm Performance Strategic Management Journal 30 909ndash920
Nelson J amp Ribeiro D (2010) The Role of Firms and Entrepreneurship on Local Development
in the egion of Vale Do Sousa Francisco Joseacute Lopes de Sousa Diniz
Office of Small and Medium Enterprises (2010) Small and Medium Enterprises Status Report
2010 and Trend 2011 Bangkok Office of Small and Medium Enterprises
Porter M E (1980) Competitive Strategy New York The Free Press
Porter ME (1996) What is strategy Harvard Business Review 74(6) 61-78
Porter M E (1985) Competitive Strategy Techniques for Analyzing Industries and
Competitors New York The Free Press
385
Porter M E (1998) Competitive Strategy Techniques for Analyzing Industries and
Competitors (1st ed) Illinois The Free Press
Porter M E (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations New York The Free Press
Robert W Thomas J P amp Julien R P ( 1980) Structure is not organization Business
Horizons 23(3) 14-26
Ringle C M Wende S amp Will A ( 2004) Smart PLS 20 ( M3) Germany University of
Hambury
Saengtienchom C (2012) SMEs and Country Economy [Online] Available
wwwrtcacthwww_km020220024_2-2553pdf [2555 March 10]
Schumpeter J (1994) A History of Economic Analysis London Routledge
Schumpeter J A ( 1950) Capitalism socialism and democracy (3rd ed) New York Harper and
Row
Shahid Q (2011) Antecedents and outcomes of entrepreneurial firms marketing capabilities
An empirical investigation of small technology based firm Journal of Strategic Innovation
and Sustainability 6(4)
Slater S F amp Narver J C (1994) Does Competitive Environment Moderate the Market
Orientation-Performance Relationship Journal of Marketing 58 46-55
Saito K A amp Villanueva D P (1981) Transaction costs of credit to the small-scale sector in
philippines Economic Development and Cultural Change 29(3) 631-640
Sertvanich K (2005) Must Correct SMEs Filature Bangkok C-Education
Tsai M T amp Shih C M (2004) The impact of marketing knowledge among managers on
marketing capabilities and business performance International Journal of Management
21(4) 524-530
Thompson A A amp Strickland A J (2003) Strategic Management Concepts and Case (11th ed)
New York McGraw-Hill
Urabe K Child J amp Kagono T ( 1 9 8 8 ) Innovation and Management International
Comparisons The concept of fit in contingency theory Berlin Walter de Gruyter amp Co
Vorhies D W (1998) An investigation of the factors leading to the development of marketing
capabilities and organizational effectiveness Journal of Strategic Marketing 6(1) 3-23
Weerawardena J (2003) The role of marketing capability in innovation ndash Based competitive
strategy Journal of Strategy Marketing 11 15-35
386
Weerawardena J O Cass A amp Julian C (2002) lsquoDoes industry matter Examining the role
of industry structure in innovation-based competitive marketing strategy Journal of
Business Research 59 37-45
Wingwon B ( 2007) SMEs Business Management Department of General Management
Faculty of Management Science Lampang Rajabhat University
Wingwon B (2011) Antecedents and Outcomes of Business Strategy for SMEs
Entrepreneurs in Northern Region Faculty of Management Science Lampang Rajabhat
University
Wingwon B (2012) Effects of entrepreneurship organization capability strategic decision
making and innovation toward the competitive advantage of SMEs enterprises Journal of
Management and Sustainability 2(1) 78-93
Zimmerer T W amp Scarborough N M (2002) Essentials of Entrepreneurship and Small
Business Management (4thed) New Jersey Prentice-Hall
374
43 Innovation Concept
Gibbons (1997 p13) stated that innovation was any new concept or idea in the
organization it could be either on product process or service including the new management
approach and new organizational marketing events which in line with the concept of Hall (1994
pp 19-22) who elaborated that innovation was more than the changing in technology
Innovation consisted of all activities that led to the change and interacted with the developing
or modifying of new technology The common adopted innovation by entrepreneurs in
business competition could be classified into 4 types (Johne 1999 pp 6-11) ie 1) product
and service innovation 2) process innovation 3) marketing innovation and 4) managing
innovation (Urabe Child and Kagono 1988 pp 4-5)
Schumpeter (1950) described innovation as the importance resources in building
competitive advantage had direct effect toward the organization (Damanpour Szabat and
Evan 1989 Han et al 1998) The organization with innovation would have adapted own self
to comply with the changing environment and led to the success with innovation as one of the
important key elements in developing and maintaining competitive capabilities (Damanpour et
al 1989 Han et al 1998) as per the below hypothesis
H7 Innovation had effect toward the competitive advantage
44 Business Strategy Concept
Strategy was plan with specified path or approach for organization to operate in achieving
objectives and targets (Davies 2000 Mintzberg 1996 pp 25-30) with focused on the integrating
and coordinating of the various business environments for the competitive advantage (Porter 1890
1882 1889 Thompson and Strickland 2003) It was the critical elements that entrepreneurs would
have to review in developing business policy strategic plan core value targets and objectives to
enhance organizational capability (Lertpachin 2011 p 5) The concept of McKinseyrsquos 7S Framework
had fundamental concept on efficiency of business derived from the correlation of internal
relevant elements within business ie 1) strategy 2) structure 3) system 4) style 5) staff 6)
skill and 7) shared value (Peters and Waterman 1980)
Duarte (2010) presented that entrepreneurial and business strategy had effect toward
competitive advantage and sustainable success or organization at significant level which aligned
with the concept of Alzal Sawat (2010 pp 87-102) It concluded that marketing capabilities
had effect toward business strategy and both variables had effect toward competitive
advantage and sustainable success or organization as per the below hypothesis
H8 Business strategy had effect toward competitive advantage
45 Competitive Advantage Concept
Porter (1985) described the competitive advantage as the differentiated business value
from competitors created for customers for their satisfactory The generating of competitive
375
advantage consisted of 3 strategic dimensions ie 1) cost leadership strategy was the
competitive strategy which focused on the lowest costs in attracting majority market and in
generating high profits Senior leader applied this strategy in controlling operating costs for
lower than competitors in expanding market shares and in earning higher profits 2)
differentiation strategy was the competitive strategy which focused on the creating of
differences in products in attracting customers to appreciate the outstanding differences
from competitors and 3) focus strategy was the competitive strategy which focused on the
meeting of demands on specific group or area of customers that were often overlooked by other
entrepreneurs It mainly focused on the limited market products or geographic areas
5 Research Methodology
This quantitative research applied survey research concept with 4 scope dimensions ie 1)
Content dimension to study the conceptual framework of entrepreneurial marketing capabilities
innovation business strategy and competitive advantage 2) Population dimension was the SMEs
entrepreneurs from industry commercial and service sectors 3) Area dimension covered 8
provinces in Lanna group ie Chiangrai Chiangmai Lampang Nan Prayao Phrae Lamphun and
Maehongsong 4) Duration dimension covered 8 months period from October 2012 till July 2012
The research tools were questionnaire developed from the literature reviews on 1) Entrepreneurial
was developed from the research works of Miller and Toulouse (1986) and Wingwon (2011) (2)
Marketing capabilities was developed from the research works of Qureshi (2010) and Merriless
Thiele Lye (2011) 3) Innovation was developed from the research works of Drucker (1985) and
Wingwon (2011) 4) Business strategy developed from the research works of McKinseyrsquos 7rsquoS
Framework Peters and Waterman (1982) and 5) Competitive advantage was developed from the
research works of Day and Wensleyrsquos (1988) Porter (1980) and Lee Itsieh (2010) Researcher
applied the 7 levels opinion measurement of Likert scale Population was total 279482 SMErsquos
entrepreneurs in Lanna group (Department of Business Development 2011) applying stratified
random sampling method and proportional selected 500 representative of entrepreneurs from
each province (Office of Small and Medium Enterprises 2010) and received 465 responded
questionnaire representing 93 percent which had been screened for completeness and coded for
research analysis
6 Data Analysis
The research applied descriptive statistics in analysis data to find the percentage means and
standard deviation and inferential statistics to analyze the correlation path in testing of
variables for direct indirect or total effect with SmartPLS program (Ringle Wende and Will
2004) The research tools were measured with Cronbachrsquos Alpha (Lee 1951) eg the value on
entrepreneurial factor was equal to 973 on marketing capabilities factor was 973 on
376
innovation factor was 973 on business strategy was 973 and on competitive advantage was
973
5 Research Summary
Section 1 General profile information of SMEs entrepreneurs
The research outcomes revealed that the majority of total SMEs entrepreneurs from 8
provinces were female in gender with average age between 31-40 years old with
undergraduate educational level and followed by below undergraduate level with business
operation in service sector and followed by in sale distribution representative or commercial
sector with business operation tenure of 1-5 years and followed by 6-10 years with source
of investment from owner finance representing 5140 percents and followed by financial
institution loans representing 4150 percents with majority of business operation at
profitable level representing 5510 percents
Section 2 SMEs entrepreneurs had favorable opinions on all 5 factors at rather high level
ie on entrepreneurial factor with value equal to 519 on marketing capabilities factor with
value equal to 519 on innovation factor with value equal to 485 on business strategy factor
with value equal to 512 and on competitive advantage factor with value equal to 512
Section 3 Outcomes of structural equation model analysis
The outcomes of structural equation model analysis revealed that entrepreneurial factor had
effect toward marketing capabilities with highest coefficient path value equal to 0703 and
with R2 value equal to 0494 and followed by entrepreneurial factor had effect toward
business strategy with coefficient path value equal to 0600 and with R2 value equal to 0479
and lastly entrepreneurial factor had effect toward innovation with coefficient path value
equal to 0477 and with R2 value equal to 0249 The entrepreneurial factor had effect toward
competitive advantage with coefficient path value equal to 0181 and with R2 value equal to
0594
377
Fig 2 Analysis with SmartPLS Program (Ringle Wende and Will 2004)
The marketing capabilities factor had effect toward the competitive advantage with
coefficient path value equal to 0258 and with R2 value equal to 0594 and marketing
capabilities factor had effect toward innovation with coefficient path value equal to 0030 and
with R2 value equal to 0249 The innovation factor had effect toward competitive advantage
with coefficient path value equal to 0029 and with R2 value equal to 0594 and innovation
factor had effect toward business strategy with coefficient path value equal to 0156 and with
R2 value equal to 0479 The business strategy facto had effect toward competitive advantage
with coefficient path value equal to 0568 and with R2 value equal to 059
8 Hypothesis Test
The outcomes of hypothesis test of entrepreneurial marketing capabilities innovation and
business strategy had effect toward competitive advantage of SMEs entrepreneurs at Lanna
group of Thailand could be summarized as follows
Table 2 Outcomes of Direct Indirect and Total Effects
Dependent Variable R2 Effect Antecedent
Entrep Mkt Cap Inno Bus Stra
Compt Ad 0594 DE 0000 0258 0029 0568
IE 0579 0004 0088 0000
TE 0579 0262 0117 0568
Bus Stra 0479 DE 0600 0000 0156 NA
IE 0077 0005 0000 NA
TE 0677 0005 0000 NA
Inno 0249 DE 0477 0030 NA NA
IE 0021 0000 NA NA
TE 0498 0030 NA NA
Mkt Cap 0494 DE 0703 NA NA NA
378
IE 0000 NA NA NA
TE 0703 NA NA NA
Note TE = Total Effect DE = Direct Effect IE = Indirect Effect NA = Not Applicable
Entrep = Entrepreneurial Mkt Cap =Marketing Capabilities Innov =Innovation Bus Stra = Business
Strategy Compt Ad = Competitive Advantage
Table 2 revealed the effect factors had effect on all 4 variables for both direct and indirect
effect toward variables with full details as follows
1 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward marketing capabilities with correlation path
value equal to 0703 and R2 value equal to 0494with direct effect toward innovation with
coefficient path value equal to 0477 and with R2 value equal to 0249 with direct effect
toward business strategy with coefficient path value equal to 0600 and with R2 value equal to
0479 and with indirect effect toward competitive advantage with coefficient path value equal
to 0579 and with R2 value equal to 0594
2 Marketing capabilities had direct effect toward innovation with coefficient path value
equal to 0030 with R2 value equal to 0249 with indirect effect toward business strategy with
coefficient path value equal to 0005 with R2 value equal to 0479 with direct effect toward
competitive advantage with coefficient path value equal to 0258 and with indirect effect
toward competitive advantage with coefficient path value equal to 0004 and with R2 value
equal to 0594
3 Innovation had direct effect toward business strategy with coefficient path value equal to
0156 with R2 value equal to 0479 with direct effect toward competitive advantage with
coefficient path value equal to 0029 and with R2 value equal to 0594 with indirect effect
toward competitive advantage with coefficient path value equal to 0088 and with R2 value
equal to 0594
4 Business strategy had direct effect toward competitive advantage with coefficient path
value equal to 0568 and with R2 value equal to 0594
Table 3 Outcomes of Hypothesis Test
Research Hypothesis Coef t-stat Outcomes
H1 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Marketing Capabilities
0702 848 Supported
H2 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Innovation 0477 442 Supported
H2 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Business Strategy 0600 1147 Supported
379
H4 Marketing Capabilities had direct effect toward Innovation 0029 024 Not Supported
H2 Innovation had effect toward Business Strategy 0156 196 Supported
H2 Marketing Capability had effect toward Competitive Advantage 0257 226 Supported
H7 Innovation had effect toward Competitive Advantage 0028 105 Not Supported
H9 Business Strategy had effect toward Competitive Advantage 0568 582 Supported
Remark t-stat ge 182 indicated that hypothesis with statistical significance at 005 level
Table 3 revealed outcomes of hypothesis test which could be summarized as follows
Hypothesis 1 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Marketing Capabilities
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that entrepreneurial had direct effect toward
marketing capabilities with coefficient path value equal to 0702 and with t-stat value equal
to 848 which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 2 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Innovation
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that entrepreneurial had direct effect toward
innovation with coefficient path value equal to 0477 and with t-state value equal to 442
which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 3 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Business Strategy
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that entrepreneurial had direct effect toward
business strategy at coefficient path value equal to 0600 and with t-state value equal to 1147
which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 4 Marketing Capabilities had direct effect toward Innovation
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that marketing capabilities had direct effect toward
innovation with coefficient path value equal to 0029 and t-stat value equal to 024 which not
supported by hypothesis
Hypothesis 5 Innovation had direct effect toward Business Strategy
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that innovation had direct effect toward business
strategy at coefficient path value equal to 0156 and with t-state value equal to 196 which
supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 6 Marketing Capabilities had effect toward Competitive Advantage
380
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that marketing capabilities had direct effect toward
competitive advantage at coefficient path value equal to 0257 and with t-state value equal
to 226 which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 7 Innovation had effect toward Competitive Advantage
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that innovation had direct effect toward competitive
advantage with coefficient path value equal to 0028 and t-stat value equal to 105 which not
supported by hypothesis
Hypothesis 8 Business Strategy had effect toward Competitive Advantage
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that business strategy had direct effect toward
competitive advantage at coefficient path value equal to 0568 and with t-state value equal
to 582 which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Table 4 Outcomes of Composite Reliability Analysis
Construct CR AVE R2 Construct
Entrep Mkt Cap Inno Bus Stra Compt Ad
Entrep 0935 0534 - 0730
Mkt Cap 0936 0620 0494 0743 0790
Inno 0964 0731 0248 0678 0614 0855
Bus Stra 0942 0645 0478 0455 0381 0498 0803
Compt Ad 0942 0700 0594 0626 0624 0702 0365 0837
Note CR = composite reliability AVE = Average Variance Extracted
Entrep = Entrepreneurial Mkt Cap = Marketing Capabilities Innov = Innovation Bus Stra =Business
Strategy
Compt Ad = Competitive Advantage
Table 4 revealed the composite reliability value of every variable and with AVE value higher
than 050 which indicated that all questions of each indicator were able to measure the value
with reliability and coefficient value of each individual indicator within the same variable had
higher coefficient value than coefficient of the different variable It indicated that
measurement of each construct was able to effectively measure own context which
confirmed its composite reliability
381
9 Research Outcomes Discussion
The majority of SMEs entrepreneurs in Lanna group of Thailand were female in
gender with average age between 31-40 years old which in line with the study of Silverstein
and Sayre (2009 pp 48-90) who stated that female entrepreneurs were more delicate
tolerate and determine in managing business than male in certain situation with particular
on the task which had to deal with relationship with others of both internal and external
organization It could be quoted that lady would be the driver of modern economy which
aligned with the concept of Zimmerer and Scarborough (2002 pp 15-19) who described the
element of entrepreneurs as working group of 30 years old and over with undergraduate
educational level with well living standard with determination in managing business risks
with vision and determination in learning and managing business with business operation in
service sector and followed with the sale distribution representative or commercial sector
with duration in business operation of 1-5 years and followed with 6-10 years with majority
of capital investment from owner private fund with business operation at profitable level and
followed with continued business growth
The majority of SMErsquos entrepreneurs had rather high entrepreneurial marketing
capabilities innovation business strategy which aligned with the concept of Shahid Qureshi
(2010) who discovered that entrepreneurial business strategy and marketing capability had
effect toward the success of enterprises The research outcomes of Wingwon (2012 pp 1-
14) summarized that entrepreneurial strategic decision making and innovation had positive
effect toward competitive advantage of small and medium enterprises by entrepreneurial
had indirect effect toward the competitive advantage of SMEs through innovation Lastly the
competitive advantage had rather high importance as it consisted of the creating of
differentiation cost leadership and focus on core business which matched with the concept
of Barney (1991 pp 99-120) which stated that competitive advantage as perceived by
customers was the higher value of products or services over competitors which could not be
substituted or compared against other offers and with higher switching costs When
comparing the performance outcomes with competitive advantage it revealed the marketing
advantage price competitiveness lower discount than competitors high quality of products
or services durability and innovation
The outcomes of structural equation model revealed that entrepreneurial had direct
effect toward marketing capability which demonstrated that entrepreneurial was the
supporting mechanism for organization in searching for new market and in introducing new
products in market and generated the marketing capability (Liu Luo and Shi 2002 pp 367-
382) It also played the critical role in product and service development (Kerin 1992 pp 331-
334) by applying entrepreneurial as the owner role in creative thinking and risk taking in
operating new business Therefore entrepreneurial had important role for leading the
organization toward marketing capabilities
382
Furthermore entrepreneurial had direct effect toward business strategy which confirmed
with the study of Wingwon (2007) which summarized that entrepreneurship risk
management inspiration and determination of staff and relevant stakeholders It included
the business capacity in operating future business (Wingwon 2007 p 49) with flexibility in
modifying target strategy and proactive operation in order to cope with the evolved changing
environment The research study pointed out the importance of business strategy of SMEs
that supported the SMErsquos sustainability and competitive advantage (Chen and Hambrick 1995
Hitt et al 1991 Storey 1994)
In addition entrepreneurial had direct effect toward innovation with aligned with the
concept of Schumpeter (1994) who quoted the importance of entrepreneurs in innovation
development He pointed out that innovation would assist the economic growth Hence
entrepreneurs had important role in developing innovation and it would in turn assisted
entrepreneurs in achieving business success
Lastly entrepreneurial had indirect effect toward competitive advantage through
marketing capabilities innovation and business strategy which conformed with research work
of Jia ndash Sheng Lee Chia-Jung Hsich (2010) It revealed that entrepreneurial had direct effect
toward marketing capabilities ability in creating innovation sustainable competitive
advantage and entrepreneurial had indirect effect toward sustainable competitive advantage
through marketing capabilities and innovation capability Shahid Qureshi (2010) had also
concluded that entrepreneurial business strategy marketing capability had effect toward
the success of SMEs
10 Research Recommendations
1 The study of entrepreneurial by applying different sampling groups with larger sampling
size The study should cover the large enterprises for comparison on the perception of
entrepreneurial of SMEs against the large enterprises
2 Government sector ought to fully aware and support the knowledge learning on
innovation development on continuous basis for entrepreneurs to applying such knowledge in
supporting competitive advantage and leading the economic development of the country as a
whole
11 References
Ana M M amp Jos C (2008) Entrepreneurial Orientation and Growth of SMEs A Causal
Model Entrepreneurship Theory
Afzal S (2010) Marketing capability strategy and business performance in emerging markets
of Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities 7(2)
Barney J ( 1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage Journal of
Management 17(1) 99ndash120
383
Bougheas S Mizen P amp Yalcin C (2004) Access to External Finance Theory and Evidence
on the Impact of Firm-Specific Characteristic Research Department Working Paper 4 6
Bannock G ( 2005) Economics and Management of Small Business An International
Perspective London Routledge
Boone L E amp Kurtz D L (2010) Contemporary Business (13th ed) New York John Wiley amp Sons
Bygrave W D amp Hofer C W ( 1991) Theorizing about Entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice 16(2) 13
Casey D (1996) Managing Learning Organizations Buckingham Open University Press
Covin J G amp Slevin D P (1991) A Conceptual Model of Entrepreneurship as Firm Behavior
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 16 7-25
Chen M amp Hambrick D C (1995) Speed stealth and selective attach How small firms
differ from large firms in competitive behavior Academy of Management Journal 38(2)
453ndash482
Cronbach L J (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests Psychometrika 16 297-
334
Department of Business Development (2011) Department of Business Development Annual
Report 2011 Bangkok Department of Business Development Ministry of Commerce
Drucker E P (1985) The discipline of innovation Harvard Business Review 67-72
Damanpour F Szabat K A amp Evan W M ( 1989) The relationship between types of
innovation and organizational performance Journal of Management Studies 26(6) 587-
601
Davies W (2000) Derstanding Strategy Strategy and Leadership 28(5) 25-30
Gibbons A ( 1997) Innovation and the Developing System of Knowledge Production University of
Sussex
Guenzi P amp Troilo G (2006) Developing marketing capabilities for customer value creation
through marketing-sales integration Industrial Marketing Management 35(8) 974-988
Hall Peter ( 1994) Innovation Economics amp Evolution Theoretical Perspectives on Changing
Technology in Economic Systems New York Harvester Wheat sheaf
Hitt M A Hoskisson R E amp Harrison J S (1991) Strategic competitiveness in the 1990s
Challenges and opportunities for US executives Academy of Management Executive 5(2) 7ndash
22
384
Han JK Kim N Srivastava R ( 1998) Market orientation and organizational
performanceIs innovation a missing link Journal of Marketing 62 (4) 30-45
Johne A ( 1999) Successful market innovation European Journal of Innovation Management 2
6-11
Jiamjittrong V (2010) Effect of Entrepreneurial toward Business Performance of SMEs Public
Administration Doctorate Degree National Institute of Development Administration
Jia-Sheng Lee amp Chia-Jung Hsieh ( 2 0 1 0 ) A Research in Relating Entrepreneurship
Marketing Capability Innovative Capability and Sustained Competitive Advantage EABR
amp ETLC Conference Proceedings Dublin Ireland
Lertpachin C ( 2 011) Strategy for Modern Entrepreneurs amidst ASEAN Economics
Community Environment Social Sciences Journal Faculty of Social Sciences Chiangrai
Rajabhat University
Liu S X Luo amp Y Shi (2002) Integrating Customer Orientation Corporate
Entrepreneurship and Learning Orientation in Organization-in-Transition an Empirical
Study Internal Journal of Research in Marketing 19 367-382
Mintzberg H ( 1996) Five Ps for Strategy In ProcessndashConcepts Contexts and Cases
Mintzberg H and Quinn Jn Eds Upper Saddle River New Jersey Prentice Hall
Michael J S amp Kate S (2009) The female economy Harvard business review September
2009
Nelson Jorge Ribeiro Duarte (2010) The Role of Firms and Entrepreneurship on Local
Development in the egion of Vale Do Sousa Francisco Joseacute Lopes de Sousa Diniz
Neil A Morgan D W Vorhies amp Charlotte H M (2009) Market Orientation Marketing
Capabilities and Firm Performance Strategic Management Journal 30 909ndash920
Nelson J amp Ribeiro D (2010) The Role of Firms and Entrepreneurship on Local Development
in the egion of Vale Do Sousa Francisco Joseacute Lopes de Sousa Diniz
Office of Small and Medium Enterprises (2010) Small and Medium Enterprises Status Report
2010 and Trend 2011 Bangkok Office of Small and Medium Enterprises
Porter M E (1980) Competitive Strategy New York The Free Press
Porter ME (1996) What is strategy Harvard Business Review 74(6) 61-78
Porter M E (1985) Competitive Strategy Techniques for Analyzing Industries and
Competitors New York The Free Press
385
Porter M E (1998) Competitive Strategy Techniques for Analyzing Industries and
Competitors (1st ed) Illinois The Free Press
Porter M E (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations New York The Free Press
Robert W Thomas J P amp Julien R P ( 1980) Structure is not organization Business
Horizons 23(3) 14-26
Ringle C M Wende S amp Will A ( 2004) Smart PLS 20 ( M3) Germany University of
Hambury
Saengtienchom C (2012) SMEs and Country Economy [Online] Available
wwwrtcacthwww_km020220024_2-2553pdf [2555 March 10]
Schumpeter J (1994) A History of Economic Analysis London Routledge
Schumpeter J A ( 1950) Capitalism socialism and democracy (3rd ed) New York Harper and
Row
Shahid Q (2011) Antecedents and outcomes of entrepreneurial firms marketing capabilities
An empirical investigation of small technology based firm Journal of Strategic Innovation
and Sustainability 6(4)
Slater S F amp Narver J C (1994) Does Competitive Environment Moderate the Market
Orientation-Performance Relationship Journal of Marketing 58 46-55
Saito K A amp Villanueva D P (1981) Transaction costs of credit to the small-scale sector in
philippines Economic Development and Cultural Change 29(3) 631-640
Sertvanich K (2005) Must Correct SMEs Filature Bangkok C-Education
Tsai M T amp Shih C M (2004) The impact of marketing knowledge among managers on
marketing capabilities and business performance International Journal of Management
21(4) 524-530
Thompson A A amp Strickland A J (2003) Strategic Management Concepts and Case (11th ed)
New York McGraw-Hill
Urabe K Child J amp Kagono T ( 1 9 8 8 ) Innovation and Management International
Comparisons The concept of fit in contingency theory Berlin Walter de Gruyter amp Co
Vorhies D W (1998) An investigation of the factors leading to the development of marketing
capabilities and organizational effectiveness Journal of Strategic Marketing 6(1) 3-23
Weerawardena J (2003) The role of marketing capability in innovation ndash Based competitive
strategy Journal of Strategy Marketing 11 15-35
386
Weerawardena J O Cass A amp Julian C (2002) lsquoDoes industry matter Examining the role
of industry structure in innovation-based competitive marketing strategy Journal of
Business Research 59 37-45
Wingwon B ( 2007) SMEs Business Management Department of General Management
Faculty of Management Science Lampang Rajabhat University
Wingwon B (2011) Antecedents and Outcomes of Business Strategy for SMEs
Entrepreneurs in Northern Region Faculty of Management Science Lampang Rajabhat
University
Wingwon B (2012) Effects of entrepreneurship organization capability strategic decision
making and innovation toward the competitive advantage of SMEs enterprises Journal of
Management and Sustainability 2(1) 78-93
Zimmerer T W amp Scarborough N M (2002) Essentials of Entrepreneurship and Small
Business Management (4thed) New Jersey Prentice-Hall
375
advantage consisted of 3 strategic dimensions ie 1) cost leadership strategy was the
competitive strategy which focused on the lowest costs in attracting majority market and in
generating high profits Senior leader applied this strategy in controlling operating costs for
lower than competitors in expanding market shares and in earning higher profits 2)
differentiation strategy was the competitive strategy which focused on the creating of
differences in products in attracting customers to appreciate the outstanding differences
from competitors and 3) focus strategy was the competitive strategy which focused on the
meeting of demands on specific group or area of customers that were often overlooked by other
entrepreneurs It mainly focused on the limited market products or geographic areas
5 Research Methodology
This quantitative research applied survey research concept with 4 scope dimensions ie 1)
Content dimension to study the conceptual framework of entrepreneurial marketing capabilities
innovation business strategy and competitive advantage 2) Population dimension was the SMEs
entrepreneurs from industry commercial and service sectors 3) Area dimension covered 8
provinces in Lanna group ie Chiangrai Chiangmai Lampang Nan Prayao Phrae Lamphun and
Maehongsong 4) Duration dimension covered 8 months period from October 2012 till July 2012
The research tools were questionnaire developed from the literature reviews on 1) Entrepreneurial
was developed from the research works of Miller and Toulouse (1986) and Wingwon (2011) (2)
Marketing capabilities was developed from the research works of Qureshi (2010) and Merriless
Thiele Lye (2011) 3) Innovation was developed from the research works of Drucker (1985) and
Wingwon (2011) 4) Business strategy developed from the research works of McKinseyrsquos 7rsquoS
Framework Peters and Waterman (1982) and 5) Competitive advantage was developed from the
research works of Day and Wensleyrsquos (1988) Porter (1980) and Lee Itsieh (2010) Researcher
applied the 7 levels opinion measurement of Likert scale Population was total 279482 SMErsquos
entrepreneurs in Lanna group (Department of Business Development 2011) applying stratified
random sampling method and proportional selected 500 representative of entrepreneurs from
each province (Office of Small and Medium Enterprises 2010) and received 465 responded
questionnaire representing 93 percent which had been screened for completeness and coded for
research analysis
6 Data Analysis
The research applied descriptive statistics in analysis data to find the percentage means and
standard deviation and inferential statistics to analyze the correlation path in testing of
variables for direct indirect or total effect with SmartPLS program (Ringle Wende and Will
2004) The research tools were measured with Cronbachrsquos Alpha (Lee 1951) eg the value on
entrepreneurial factor was equal to 973 on marketing capabilities factor was 973 on
376
innovation factor was 973 on business strategy was 973 and on competitive advantage was
973
5 Research Summary
Section 1 General profile information of SMEs entrepreneurs
The research outcomes revealed that the majority of total SMEs entrepreneurs from 8
provinces were female in gender with average age between 31-40 years old with
undergraduate educational level and followed by below undergraduate level with business
operation in service sector and followed by in sale distribution representative or commercial
sector with business operation tenure of 1-5 years and followed by 6-10 years with source
of investment from owner finance representing 5140 percents and followed by financial
institution loans representing 4150 percents with majority of business operation at
profitable level representing 5510 percents
Section 2 SMEs entrepreneurs had favorable opinions on all 5 factors at rather high level
ie on entrepreneurial factor with value equal to 519 on marketing capabilities factor with
value equal to 519 on innovation factor with value equal to 485 on business strategy factor
with value equal to 512 and on competitive advantage factor with value equal to 512
Section 3 Outcomes of structural equation model analysis
The outcomes of structural equation model analysis revealed that entrepreneurial factor had
effect toward marketing capabilities with highest coefficient path value equal to 0703 and
with R2 value equal to 0494 and followed by entrepreneurial factor had effect toward
business strategy with coefficient path value equal to 0600 and with R2 value equal to 0479
and lastly entrepreneurial factor had effect toward innovation with coefficient path value
equal to 0477 and with R2 value equal to 0249 The entrepreneurial factor had effect toward
competitive advantage with coefficient path value equal to 0181 and with R2 value equal to
0594
377
Fig 2 Analysis with SmartPLS Program (Ringle Wende and Will 2004)
The marketing capabilities factor had effect toward the competitive advantage with
coefficient path value equal to 0258 and with R2 value equal to 0594 and marketing
capabilities factor had effect toward innovation with coefficient path value equal to 0030 and
with R2 value equal to 0249 The innovation factor had effect toward competitive advantage
with coefficient path value equal to 0029 and with R2 value equal to 0594 and innovation
factor had effect toward business strategy with coefficient path value equal to 0156 and with
R2 value equal to 0479 The business strategy facto had effect toward competitive advantage
with coefficient path value equal to 0568 and with R2 value equal to 059
8 Hypothesis Test
The outcomes of hypothesis test of entrepreneurial marketing capabilities innovation and
business strategy had effect toward competitive advantage of SMEs entrepreneurs at Lanna
group of Thailand could be summarized as follows
Table 2 Outcomes of Direct Indirect and Total Effects
Dependent Variable R2 Effect Antecedent
Entrep Mkt Cap Inno Bus Stra
Compt Ad 0594 DE 0000 0258 0029 0568
IE 0579 0004 0088 0000
TE 0579 0262 0117 0568
Bus Stra 0479 DE 0600 0000 0156 NA
IE 0077 0005 0000 NA
TE 0677 0005 0000 NA
Inno 0249 DE 0477 0030 NA NA
IE 0021 0000 NA NA
TE 0498 0030 NA NA
Mkt Cap 0494 DE 0703 NA NA NA
378
IE 0000 NA NA NA
TE 0703 NA NA NA
Note TE = Total Effect DE = Direct Effect IE = Indirect Effect NA = Not Applicable
Entrep = Entrepreneurial Mkt Cap =Marketing Capabilities Innov =Innovation Bus Stra = Business
Strategy Compt Ad = Competitive Advantage
Table 2 revealed the effect factors had effect on all 4 variables for both direct and indirect
effect toward variables with full details as follows
1 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward marketing capabilities with correlation path
value equal to 0703 and R2 value equal to 0494with direct effect toward innovation with
coefficient path value equal to 0477 and with R2 value equal to 0249 with direct effect
toward business strategy with coefficient path value equal to 0600 and with R2 value equal to
0479 and with indirect effect toward competitive advantage with coefficient path value equal
to 0579 and with R2 value equal to 0594
2 Marketing capabilities had direct effect toward innovation with coefficient path value
equal to 0030 with R2 value equal to 0249 with indirect effect toward business strategy with
coefficient path value equal to 0005 with R2 value equal to 0479 with direct effect toward
competitive advantage with coefficient path value equal to 0258 and with indirect effect
toward competitive advantage with coefficient path value equal to 0004 and with R2 value
equal to 0594
3 Innovation had direct effect toward business strategy with coefficient path value equal to
0156 with R2 value equal to 0479 with direct effect toward competitive advantage with
coefficient path value equal to 0029 and with R2 value equal to 0594 with indirect effect
toward competitive advantage with coefficient path value equal to 0088 and with R2 value
equal to 0594
4 Business strategy had direct effect toward competitive advantage with coefficient path
value equal to 0568 and with R2 value equal to 0594
Table 3 Outcomes of Hypothesis Test
Research Hypothesis Coef t-stat Outcomes
H1 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Marketing Capabilities
0702 848 Supported
H2 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Innovation 0477 442 Supported
H2 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Business Strategy 0600 1147 Supported
379
H4 Marketing Capabilities had direct effect toward Innovation 0029 024 Not Supported
H2 Innovation had effect toward Business Strategy 0156 196 Supported
H2 Marketing Capability had effect toward Competitive Advantage 0257 226 Supported
H7 Innovation had effect toward Competitive Advantage 0028 105 Not Supported
H9 Business Strategy had effect toward Competitive Advantage 0568 582 Supported
Remark t-stat ge 182 indicated that hypothesis with statistical significance at 005 level
Table 3 revealed outcomes of hypothesis test which could be summarized as follows
Hypothesis 1 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Marketing Capabilities
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that entrepreneurial had direct effect toward
marketing capabilities with coefficient path value equal to 0702 and with t-stat value equal
to 848 which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 2 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Innovation
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that entrepreneurial had direct effect toward
innovation with coefficient path value equal to 0477 and with t-state value equal to 442
which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 3 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Business Strategy
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that entrepreneurial had direct effect toward
business strategy at coefficient path value equal to 0600 and with t-state value equal to 1147
which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 4 Marketing Capabilities had direct effect toward Innovation
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that marketing capabilities had direct effect toward
innovation with coefficient path value equal to 0029 and t-stat value equal to 024 which not
supported by hypothesis
Hypothesis 5 Innovation had direct effect toward Business Strategy
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that innovation had direct effect toward business
strategy at coefficient path value equal to 0156 and with t-state value equal to 196 which
supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 6 Marketing Capabilities had effect toward Competitive Advantage
380
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that marketing capabilities had direct effect toward
competitive advantage at coefficient path value equal to 0257 and with t-state value equal
to 226 which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 7 Innovation had effect toward Competitive Advantage
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that innovation had direct effect toward competitive
advantage with coefficient path value equal to 0028 and t-stat value equal to 105 which not
supported by hypothesis
Hypothesis 8 Business Strategy had effect toward Competitive Advantage
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that business strategy had direct effect toward
competitive advantage at coefficient path value equal to 0568 and with t-state value equal
to 582 which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Table 4 Outcomes of Composite Reliability Analysis
Construct CR AVE R2 Construct
Entrep Mkt Cap Inno Bus Stra Compt Ad
Entrep 0935 0534 - 0730
Mkt Cap 0936 0620 0494 0743 0790
Inno 0964 0731 0248 0678 0614 0855
Bus Stra 0942 0645 0478 0455 0381 0498 0803
Compt Ad 0942 0700 0594 0626 0624 0702 0365 0837
Note CR = composite reliability AVE = Average Variance Extracted
Entrep = Entrepreneurial Mkt Cap = Marketing Capabilities Innov = Innovation Bus Stra =Business
Strategy
Compt Ad = Competitive Advantage
Table 4 revealed the composite reliability value of every variable and with AVE value higher
than 050 which indicated that all questions of each indicator were able to measure the value
with reliability and coefficient value of each individual indicator within the same variable had
higher coefficient value than coefficient of the different variable It indicated that
measurement of each construct was able to effectively measure own context which
confirmed its composite reliability
381
9 Research Outcomes Discussion
The majority of SMEs entrepreneurs in Lanna group of Thailand were female in
gender with average age between 31-40 years old which in line with the study of Silverstein
and Sayre (2009 pp 48-90) who stated that female entrepreneurs were more delicate
tolerate and determine in managing business than male in certain situation with particular
on the task which had to deal with relationship with others of both internal and external
organization It could be quoted that lady would be the driver of modern economy which
aligned with the concept of Zimmerer and Scarborough (2002 pp 15-19) who described the
element of entrepreneurs as working group of 30 years old and over with undergraduate
educational level with well living standard with determination in managing business risks
with vision and determination in learning and managing business with business operation in
service sector and followed with the sale distribution representative or commercial sector
with duration in business operation of 1-5 years and followed with 6-10 years with majority
of capital investment from owner private fund with business operation at profitable level and
followed with continued business growth
The majority of SMErsquos entrepreneurs had rather high entrepreneurial marketing
capabilities innovation business strategy which aligned with the concept of Shahid Qureshi
(2010) who discovered that entrepreneurial business strategy and marketing capability had
effect toward the success of enterprises The research outcomes of Wingwon (2012 pp 1-
14) summarized that entrepreneurial strategic decision making and innovation had positive
effect toward competitive advantage of small and medium enterprises by entrepreneurial
had indirect effect toward the competitive advantage of SMEs through innovation Lastly the
competitive advantage had rather high importance as it consisted of the creating of
differentiation cost leadership and focus on core business which matched with the concept
of Barney (1991 pp 99-120) which stated that competitive advantage as perceived by
customers was the higher value of products or services over competitors which could not be
substituted or compared against other offers and with higher switching costs When
comparing the performance outcomes with competitive advantage it revealed the marketing
advantage price competitiveness lower discount than competitors high quality of products
or services durability and innovation
The outcomes of structural equation model revealed that entrepreneurial had direct
effect toward marketing capability which demonstrated that entrepreneurial was the
supporting mechanism for organization in searching for new market and in introducing new
products in market and generated the marketing capability (Liu Luo and Shi 2002 pp 367-
382) It also played the critical role in product and service development (Kerin 1992 pp 331-
334) by applying entrepreneurial as the owner role in creative thinking and risk taking in
operating new business Therefore entrepreneurial had important role for leading the
organization toward marketing capabilities
382
Furthermore entrepreneurial had direct effect toward business strategy which confirmed
with the study of Wingwon (2007) which summarized that entrepreneurship risk
management inspiration and determination of staff and relevant stakeholders It included
the business capacity in operating future business (Wingwon 2007 p 49) with flexibility in
modifying target strategy and proactive operation in order to cope with the evolved changing
environment The research study pointed out the importance of business strategy of SMEs
that supported the SMErsquos sustainability and competitive advantage (Chen and Hambrick 1995
Hitt et al 1991 Storey 1994)
In addition entrepreneurial had direct effect toward innovation with aligned with the
concept of Schumpeter (1994) who quoted the importance of entrepreneurs in innovation
development He pointed out that innovation would assist the economic growth Hence
entrepreneurs had important role in developing innovation and it would in turn assisted
entrepreneurs in achieving business success
Lastly entrepreneurial had indirect effect toward competitive advantage through
marketing capabilities innovation and business strategy which conformed with research work
of Jia ndash Sheng Lee Chia-Jung Hsich (2010) It revealed that entrepreneurial had direct effect
toward marketing capabilities ability in creating innovation sustainable competitive
advantage and entrepreneurial had indirect effect toward sustainable competitive advantage
through marketing capabilities and innovation capability Shahid Qureshi (2010) had also
concluded that entrepreneurial business strategy marketing capability had effect toward
the success of SMEs
10 Research Recommendations
1 The study of entrepreneurial by applying different sampling groups with larger sampling
size The study should cover the large enterprises for comparison on the perception of
entrepreneurial of SMEs against the large enterprises
2 Government sector ought to fully aware and support the knowledge learning on
innovation development on continuous basis for entrepreneurs to applying such knowledge in
supporting competitive advantage and leading the economic development of the country as a
whole
11 References
Ana M M amp Jos C (2008) Entrepreneurial Orientation and Growth of SMEs A Causal
Model Entrepreneurship Theory
Afzal S (2010) Marketing capability strategy and business performance in emerging markets
of Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities 7(2)
Barney J ( 1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage Journal of
Management 17(1) 99ndash120
383
Bougheas S Mizen P amp Yalcin C (2004) Access to External Finance Theory and Evidence
on the Impact of Firm-Specific Characteristic Research Department Working Paper 4 6
Bannock G ( 2005) Economics and Management of Small Business An International
Perspective London Routledge
Boone L E amp Kurtz D L (2010) Contemporary Business (13th ed) New York John Wiley amp Sons
Bygrave W D amp Hofer C W ( 1991) Theorizing about Entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice 16(2) 13
Casey D (1996) Managing Learning Organizations Buckingham Open University Press
Covin J G amp Slevin D P (1991) A Conceptual Model of Entrepreneurship as Firm Behavior
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 16 7-25
Chen M amp Hambrick D C (1995) Speed stealth and selective attach How small firms
differ from large firms in competitive behavior Academy of Management Journal 38(2)
453ndash482
Cronbach L J (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests Psychometrika 16 297-
334
Department of Business Development (2011) Department of Business Development Annual
Report 2011 Bangkok Department of Business Development Ministry of Commerce
Drucker E P (1985) The discipline of innovation Harvard Business Review 67-72
Damanpour F Szabat K A amp Evan W M ( 1989) The relationship between types of
innovation and organizational performance Journal of Management Studies 26(6) 587-
601
Davies W (2000) Derstanding Strategy Strategy and Leadership 28(5) 25-30
Gibbons A ( 1997) Innovation and the Developing System of Knowledge Production University of
Sussex
Guenzi P amp Troilo G (2006) Developing marketing capabilities for customer value creation
through marketing-sales integration Industrial Marketing Management 35(8) 974-988
Hall Peter ( 1994) Innovation Economics amp Evolution Theoretical Perspectives on Changing
Technology in Economic Systems New York Harvester Wheat sheaf
Hitt M A Hoskisson R E amp Harrison J S (1991) Strategic competitiveness in the 1990s
Challenges and opportunities for US executives Academy of Management Executive 5(2) 7ndash
22
384
Han JK Kim N Srivastava R ( 1998) Market orientation and organizational
performanceIs innovation a missing link Journal of Marketing 62 (4) 30-45
Johne A ( 1999) Successful market innovation European Journal of Innovation Management 2
6-11
Jiamjittrong V (2010) Effect of Entrepreneurial toward Business Performance of SMEs Public
Administration Doctorate Degree National Institute of Development Administration
Jia-Sheng Lee amp Chia-Jung Hsieh ( 2 0 1 0 ) A Research in Relating Entrepreneurship
Marketing Capability Innovative Capability and Sustained Competitive Advantage EABR
amp ETLC Conference Proceedings Dublin Ireland
Lertpachin C ( 2 011) Strategy for Modern Entrepreneurs amidst ASEAN Economics
Community Environment Social Sciences Journal Faculty of Social Sciences Chiangrai
Rajabhat University
Liu S X Luo amp Y Shi (2002) Integrating Customer Orientation Corporate
Entrepreneurship and Learning Orientation in Organization-in-Transition an Empirical
Study Internal Journal of Research in Marketing 19 367-382
Mintzberg H ( 1996) Five Ps for Strategy In ProcessndashConcepts Contexts and Cases
Mintzberg H and Quinn Jn Eds Upper Saddle River New Jersey Prentice Hall
Michael J S amp Kate S (2009) The female economy Harvard business review September
2009
Nelson Jorge Ribeiro Duarte (2010) The Role of Firms and Entrepreneurship on Local
Development in the egion of Vale Do Sousa Francisco Joseacute Lopes de Sousa Diniz
Neil A Morgan D W Vorhies amp Charlotte H M (2009) Market Orientation Marketing
Capabilities and Firm Performance Strategic Management Journal 30 909ndash920
Nelson J amp Ribeiro D (2010) The Role of Firms and Entrepreneurship on Local Development
in the egion of Vale Do Sousa Francisco Joseacute Lopes de Sousa Diniz
Office of Small and Medium Enterprises (2010) Small and Medium Enterprises Status Report
2010 and Trend 2011 Bangkok Office of Small and Medium Enterprises
Porter M E (1980) Competitive Strategy New York The Free Press
Porter ME (1996) What is strategy Harvard Business Review 74(6) 61-78
Porter M E (1985) Competitive Strategy Techniques for Analyzing Industries and
Competitors New York The Free Press
385
Porter M E (1998) Competitive Strategy Techniques for Analyzing Industries and
Competitors (1st ed) Illinois The Free Press
Porter M E (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations New York The Free Press
Robert W Thomas J P amp Julien R P ( 1980) Structure is not organization Business
Horizons 23(3) 14-26
Ringle C M Wende S amp Will A ( 2004) Smart PLS 20 ( M3) Germany University of
Hambury
Saengtienchom C (2012) SMEs and Country Economy [Online] Available
wwwrtcacthwww_km020220024_2-2553pdf [2555 March 10]
Schumpeter J (1994) A History of Economic Analysis London Routledge
Schumpeter J A ( 1950) Capitalism socialism and democracy (3rd ed) New York Harper and
Row
Shahid Q (2011) Antecedents and outcomes of entrepreneurial firms marketing capabilities
An empirical investigation of small technology based firm Journal of Strategic Innovation
and Sustainability 6(4)
Slater S F amp Narver J C (1994) Does Competitive Environment Moderate the Market
Orientation-Performance Relationship Journal of Marketing 58 46-55
Saito K A amp Villanueva D P (1981) Transaction costs of credit to the small-scale sector in
philippines Economic Development and Cultural Change 29(3) 631-640
Sertvanich K (2005) Must Correct SMEs Filature Bangkok C-Education
Tsai M T amp Shih C M (2004) The impact of marketing knowledge among managers on
marketing capabilities and business performance International Journal of Management
21(4) 524-530
Thompson A A amp Strickland A J (2003) Strategic Management Concepts and Case (11th ed)
New York McGraw-Hill
Urabe K Child J amp Kagono T ( 1 9 8 8 ) Innovation and Management International
Comparisons The concept of fit in contingency theory Berlin Walter de Gruyter amp Co
Vorhies D W (1998) An investigation of the factors leading to the development of marketing
capabilities and organizational effectiveness Journal of Strategic Marketing 6(1) 3-23
Weerawardena J (2003) The role of marketing capability in innovation ndash Based competitive
strategy Journal of Strategy Marketing 11 15-35
386
Weerawardena J O Cass A amp Julian C (2002) lsquoDoes industry matter Examining the role
of industry structure in innovation-based competitive marketing strategy Journal of
Business Research 59 37-45
Wingwon B ( 2007) SMEs Business Management Department of General Management
Faculty of Management Science Lampang Rajabhat University
Wingwon B (2011) Antecedents and Outcomes of Business Strategy for SMEs
Entrepreneurs in Northern Region Faculty of Management Science Lampang Rajabhat
University
Wingwon B (2012) Effects of entrepreneurship organization capability strategic decision
making and innovation toward the competitive advantage of SMEs enterprises Journal of
Management and Sustainability 2(1) 78-93
Zimmerer T W amp Scarborough N M (2002) Essentials of Entrepreneurship and Small
Business Management (4thed) New Jersey Prentice-Hall
376
innovation factor was 973 on business strategy was 973 and on competitive advantage was
973
5 Research Summary
Section 1 General profile information of SMEs entrepreneurs
The research outcomes revealed that the majority of total SMEs entrepreneurs from 8
provinces were female in gender with average age between 31-40 years old with
undergraduate educational level and followed by below undergraduate level with business
operation in service sector and followed by in sale distribution representative or commercial
sector with business operation tenure of 1-5 years and followed by 6-10 years with source
of investment from owner finance representing 5140 percents and followed by financial
institution loans representing 4150 percents with majority of business operation at
profitable level representing 5510 percents
Section 2 SMEs entrepreneurs had favorable opinions on all 5 factors at rather high level
ie on entrepreneurial factor with value equal to 519 on marketing capabilities factor with
value equal to 519 on innovation factor with value equal to 485 on business strategy factor
with value equal to 512 and on competitive advantage factor with value equal to 512
Section 3 Outcomes of structural equation model analysis
The outcomes of structural equation model analysis revealed that entrepreneurial factor had
effect toward marketing capabilities with highest coefficient path value equal to 0703 and
with R2 value equal to 0494 and followed by entrepreneurial factor had effect toward
business strategy with coefficient path value equal to 0600 and with R2 value equal to 0479
and lastly entrepreneurial factor had effect toward innovation with coefficient path value
equal to 0477 and with R2 value equal to 0249 The entrepreneurial factor had effect toward
competitive advantage with coefficient path value equal to 0181 and with R2 value equal to
0594
377
Fig 2 Analysis with SmartPLS Program (Ringle Wende and Will 2004)
The marketing capabilities factor had effect toward the competitive advantage with
coefficient path value equal to 0258 and with R2 value equal to 0594 and marketing
capabilities factor had effect toward innovation with coefficient path value equal to 0030 and
with R2 value equal to 0249 The innovation factor had effect toward competitive advantage
with coefficient path value equal to 0029 and with R2 value equal to 0594 and innovation
factor had effect toward business strategy with coefficient path value equal to 0156 and with
R2 value equal to 0479 The business strategy facto had effect toward competitive advantage
with coefficient path value equal to 0568 and with R2 value equal to 059
8 Hypothesis Test
The outcomes of hypothesis test of entrepreneurial marketing capabilities innovation and
business strategy had effect toward competitive advantage of SMEs entrepreneurs at Lanna
group of Thailand could be summarized as follows
Table 2 Outcomes of Direct Indirect and Total Effects
Dependent Variable R2 Effect Antecedent
Entrep Mkt Cap Inno Bus Stra
Compt Ad 0594 DE 0000 0258 0029 0568
IE 0579 0004 0088 0000
TE 0579 0262 0117 0568
Bus Stra 0479 DE 0600 0000 0156 NA
IE 0077 0005 0000 NA
TE 0677 0005 0000 NA
Inno 0249 DE 0477 0030 NA NA
IE 0021 0000 NA NA
TE 0498 0030 NA NA
Mkt Cap 0494 DE 0703 NA NA NA
378
IE 0000 NA NA NA
TE 0703 NA NA NA
Note TE = Total Effect DE = Direct Effect IE = Indirect Effect NA = Not Applicable
Entrep = Entrepreneurial Mkt Cap =Marketing Capabilities Innov =Innovation Bus Stra = Business
Strategy Compt Ad = Competitive Advantage
Table 2 revealed the effect factors had effect on all 4 variables for both direct and indirect
effect toward variables with full details as follows
1 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward marketing capabilities with correlation path
value equal to 0703 and R2 value equal to 0494with direct effect toward innovation with
coefficient path value equal to 0477 and with R2 value equal to 0249 with direct effect
toward business strategy with coefficient path value equal to 0600 and with R2 value equal to
0479 and with indirect effect toward competitive advantage with coefficient path value equal
to 0579 and with R2 value equal to 0594
2 Marketing capabilities had direct effect toward innovation with coefficient path value
equal to 0030 with R2 value equal to 0249 with indirect effect toward business strategy with
coefficient path value equal to 0005 with R2 value equal to 0479 with direct effect toward
competitive advantage with coefficient path value equal to 0258 and with indirect effect
toward competitive advantage with coefficient path value equal to 0004 and with R2 value
equal to 0594
3 Innovation had direct effect toward business strategy with coefficient path value equal to
0156 with R2 value equal to 0479 with direct effect toward competitive advantage with
coefficient path value equal to 0029 and with R2 value equal to 0594 with indirect effect
toward competitive advantage with coefficient path value equal to 0088 and with R2 value
equal to 0594
4 Business strategy had direct effect toward competitive advantage with coefficient path
value equal to 0568 and with R2 value equal to 0594
Table 3 Outcomes of Hypothesis Test
Research Hypothesis Coef t-stat Outcomes
H1 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Marketing Capabilities
0702 848 Supported
H2 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Innovation 0477 442 Supported
H2 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Business Strategy 0600 1147 Supported
379
H4 Marketing Capabilities had direct effect toward Innovation 0029 024 Not Supported
H2 Innovation had effect toward Business Strategy 0156 196 Supported
H2 Marketing Capability had effect toward Competitive Advantage 0257 226 Supported
H7 Innovation had effect toward Competitive Advantage 0028 105 Not Supported
H9 Business Strategy had effect toward Competitive Advantage 0568 582 Supported
Remark t-stat ge 182 indicated that hypothesis with statistical significance at 005 level
Table 3 revealed outcomes of hypothesis test which could be summarized as follows
Hypothesis 1 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Marketing Capabilities
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that entrepreneurial had direct effect toward
marketing capabilities with coefficient path value equal to 0702 and with t-stat value equal
to 848 which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 2 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Innovation
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that entrepreneurial had direct effect toward
innovation with coefficient path value equal to 0477 and with t-state value equal to 442
which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 3 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Business Strategy
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that entrepreneurial had direct effect toward
business strategy at coefficient path value equal to 0600 and with t-state value equal to 1147
which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 4 Marketing Capabilities had direct effect toward Innovation
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that marketing capabilities had direct effect toward
innovation with coefficient path value equal to 0029 and t-stat value equal to 024 which not
supported by hypothesis
Hypothesis 5 Innovation had direct effect toward Business Strategy
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that innovation had direct effect toward business
strategy at coefficient path value equal to 0156 and with t-state value equal to 196 which
supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 6 Marketing Capabilities had effect toward Competitive Advantage
380
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that marketing capabilities had direct effect toward
competitive advantage at coefficient path value equal to 0257 and with t-state value equal
to 226 which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 7 Innovation had effect toward Competitive Advantage
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that innovation had direct effect toward competitive
advantage with coefficient path value equal to 0028 and t-stat value equal to 105 which not
supported by hypothesis
Hypothesis 8 Business Strategy had effect toward Competitive Advantage
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that business strategy had direct effect toward
competitive advantage at coefficient path value equal to 0568 and with t-state value equal
to 582 which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Table 4 Outcomes of Composite Reliability Analysis
Construct CR AVE R2 Construct
Entrep Mkt Cap Inno Bus Stra Compt Ad
Entrep 0935 0534 - 0730
Mkt Cap 0936 0620 0494 0743 0790
Inno 0964 0731 0248 0678 0614 0855
Bus Stra 0942 0645 0478 0455 0381 0498 0803
Compt Ad 0942 0700 0594 0626 0624 0702 0365 0837
Note CR = composite reliability AVE = Average Variance Extracted
Entrep = Entrepreneurial Mkt Cap = Marketing Capabilities Innov = Innovation Bus Stra =Business
Strategy
Compt Ad = Competitive Advantage
Table 4 revealed the composite reliability value of every variable and with AVE value higher
than 050 which indicated that all questions of each indicator were able to measure the value
with reliability and coefficient value of each individual indicator within the same variable had
higher coefficient value than coefficient of the different variable It indicated that
measurement of each construct was able to effectively measure own context which
confirmed its composite reliability
381
9 Research Outcomes Discussion
The majority of SMEs entrepreneurs in Lanna group of Thailand were female in
gender with average age between 31-40 years old which in line with the study of Silverstein
and Sayre (2009 pp 48-90) who stated that female entrepreneurs were more delicate
tolerate and determine in managing business than male in certain situation with particular
on the task which had to deal with relationship with others of both internal and external
organization It could be quoted that lady would be the driver of modern economy which
aligned with the concept of Zimmerer and Scarborough (2002 pp 15-19) who described the
element of entrepreneurs as working group of 30 years old and over with undergraduate
educational level with well living standard with determination in managing business risks
with vision and determination in learning and managing business with business operation in
service sector and followed with the sale distribution representative or commercial sector
with duration in business operation of 1-5 years and followed with 6-10 years with majority
of capital investment from owner private fund with business operation at profitable level and
followed with continued business growth
The majority of SMErsquos entrepreneurs had rather high entrepreneurial marketing
capabilities innovation business strategy which aligned with the concept of Shahid Qureshi
(2010) who discovered that entrepreneurial business strategy and marketing capability had
effect toward the success of enterprises The research outcomes of Wingwon (2012 pp 1-
14) summarized that entrepreneurial strategic decision making and innovation had positive
effect toward competitive advantage of small and medium enterprises by entrepreneurial
had indirect effect toward the competitive advantage of SMEs through innovation Lastly the
competitive advantage had rather high importance as it consisted of the creating of
differentiation cost leadership and focus on core business which matched with the concept
of Barney (1991 pp 99-120) which stated that competitive advantage as perceived by
customers was the higher value of products or services over competitors which could not be
substituted or compared against other offers and with higher switching costs When
comparing the performance outcomes with competitive advantage it revealed the marketing
advantage price competitiveness lower discount than competitors high quality of products
or services durability and innovation
The outcomes of structural equation model revealed that entrepreneurial had direct
effect toward marketing capability which demonstrated that entrepreneurial was the
supporting mechanism for organization in searching for new market and in introducing new
products in market and generated the marketing capability (Liu Luo and Shi 2002 pp 367-
382) It also played the critical role in product and service development (Kerin 1992 pp 331-
334) by applying entrepreneurial as the owner role in creative thinking and risk taking in
operating new business Therefore entrepreneurial had important role for leading the
organization toward marketing capabilities
382
Furthermore entrepreneurial had direct effect toward business strategy which confirmed
with the study of Wingwon (2007) which summarized that entrepreneurship risk
management inspiration and determination of staff and relevant stakeholders It included
the business capacity in operating future business (Wingwon 2007 p 49) with flexibility in
modifying target strategy and proactive operation in order to cope with the evolved changing
environment The research study pointed out the importance of business strategy of SMEs
that supported the SMErsquos sustainability and competitive advantage (Chen and Hambrick 1995
Hitt et al 1991 Storey 1994)
In addition entrepreneurial had direct effect toward innovation with aligned with the
concept of Schumpeter (1994) who quoted the importance of entrepreneurs in innovation
development He pointed out that innovation would assist the economic growth Hence
entrepreneurs had important role in developing innovation and it would in turn assisted
entrepreneurs in achieving business success
Lastly entrepreneurial had indirect effect toward competitive advantage through
marketing capabilities innovation and business strategy which conformed with research work
of Jia ndash Sheng Lee Chia-Jung Hsich (2010) It revealed that entrepreneurial had direct effect
toward marketing capabilities ability in creating innovation sustainable competitive
advantage and entrepreneurial had indirect effect toward sustainable competitive advantage
through marketing capabilities and innovation capability Shahid Qureshi (2010) had also
concluded that entrepreneurial business strategy marketing capability had effect toward
the success of SMEs
10 Research Recommendations
1 The study of entrepreneurial by applying different sampling groups with larger sampling
size The study should cover the large enterprises for comparison on the perception of
entrepreneurial of SMEs against the large enterprises
2 Government sector ought to fully aware and support the knowledge learning on
innovation development on continuous basis for entrepreneurs to applying such knowledge in
supporting competitive advantage and leading the economic development of the country as a
whole
11 References
Ana M M amp Jos C (2008) Entrepreneurial Orientation and Growth of SMEs A Causal
Model Entrepreneurship Theory
Afzal S (2010) Marketing capability strategy and business performance in emerging markets
of Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities 7(2)
Barney J ( 1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage Journal of
Management 17(1) 99ndash120
383
Bougheas S Mizen P amp Yalcin C (2004) Access to External Finance Theory and Evidence
on the Impact of Firm-Specific Characteristic Research Department Working Paper 4 6
Bannock G ( 2005) Economics and Management of Small Business An International
Perspective London Routledge
Boone L E amp Kurtz D L (2010) Contemporary Business (13th ed) New York John Wiley amp Sons
Bygrave W D amp Hofer C W ( 1991) Theorizing about Entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice 16(2) 13
Casey D (1996) Managing Learning Organizations Buckingham Open University Press
Covin J G amp Slevin D P (1991) A Conceptual Model of Entrepreneurship as Firm Behavior
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 16 7-25
Chen M amp Hambrick D C (1995) Speed stealth and selective attach How small firms
differ from large firms in competitive behavior Academy of Management Journal 38(2)
453ndash482
Cronbach L J (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests Psychometrika 16 297-
334
Department of Business Development (2011) Department of Business Development Annual
Report 2011 Bangkok Department of Business Development Ministry of Commerce
Drucker E P (1985) The discipline of innovation Harvard Business Review 67-72
Damanpour F Szabat K A amp Evan W M ( 1989) The relationship between types of
innovation and organizational performance Journal of Management Studies 26(6) 587-
601
Davies W (2000) Derstanding Strategy Strategy and Leadership 28(5) 25-30
Gibbons A ( 1997) Innovation and the Developing System of Knowledge Production University of
Sussex
Guenzi P amp Troilo G (2006) Developing marketing capabilities for customer value creation
through marketing-sales integration Industrial Marketing Management 35(8) 974-988
Hall Peter ( 1994) Innovation Economics amp Evolution Theoretical Perspectives on Changing
Technology in Economic Systems New York Harvester Wheat sheaf
Hitt M A Hoskisson R E amp Harrison J S (1991) Strategic competitiveness in the 1990s
Challenges and opportunities for US executives Academy of Management Executive 5(2) 7ndash
22
384
Han JK Kim N Srivastava R ( 1998) Market orientation and organizational
performanceIs innovation a missing link Journal of Marketing 62 (4) 30-45
Johne A ( 1999) Successful market innovation European Journal of Innovation Management 2
6-11
Jiamjittrong V (2010) Effect of Entrepreneurial toward Business Performance of SMEs Public
Administration Doctorate Degree National Institute of Development Administration
Jia-Sheng Lee amp Chia-Jung Hsieh ( 2 0 1 0 ) A Research in Relating Entrepreneurship
Marketing Capability Innovative Capability and Sustained Competitive Advantage EABR
amp ETLC Conference Proceedings Dublin Ireland
Lertpachin C ( 2 011) Strategy for Modern Entrepreneurs amidst ASEAN Economics
Community Environment Social Sciences Journal Faculty of Social Sciences Chiangrai
Rajabhat University
Liu S X Luo amp Y Shi (2002) Integrating Customer Orientation Corporate
Entrepreneurship and Learning Orientation in Organization-in-Transition an Empirical
Study Internal Journal of Research in Marketing 19 367-382
Mintzberg H ( 1996) Five Ps for Strategy In ProcessndashConcepts Contexts and Cases
Mintzberg H and Quinn Jn Eds Upper Saddle River New Jersey Prentice Hall
Michael J S amp Kate S (2009) The female economy Harvard business review September
2009
Nelson Jorge Ribeiro Duarte (2010) The Role of Firms and Entrepreneurship on Local
Development in the egion of Vale Do Sousa Francisco Joseacute Lopes de Sousa Diniz
Neil A Morgan D W Vorhies amp Charlotte H M (2009) Market Orientation Marketing
Capabilities and Firm Performance Strategic Management Journal 30 909ndash920
Nelson J amp Ribeiro D (2010) The Role of Firms and Entrepreneurship on Local Development
in the egion of Vale Do Sousa Francisco Joseacute Lopes de Sousa Diniz
Office of Small and Medium Enterprises (2010) Small and Medium Enterprises Status Report
2010 and Trend 2011 Bangkok Office of Small and Medium Enterprises
Porter M E (1980) Competitive Strategy New York The Free Press
Porter ME (1996) What is strategy Harvard Business Review 74(6) 61-78
Porter M E (1985) Competitive Strategy Techniques for Analyzing Industries and
Competitors New York The Free Press
385
Porter M E (1998) Competitive Strategy Techniques for Analyzing Industries and
Competitors (1st ed) Illinois The Free Press
Porter M E (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations New York The Free Press
Robert W Thomas J P amp Julien R P ( 1980) Structure is not organization Business
Horizons 23(3) 14-26
Ringle C M Wende S amp Will A ( 2004) Smart PLS 20 ( M3) Germany University of
Hambury
Saengtienchom C (2012) SMEs and Country Economy [Online] Available
wwwrtcacthwww_km020220024_2-2553pdf [2555 March 10]
Schumpeter J (1994) A History of Economic Analysis London Routledge
Schumpeter J A ( 1950) Capitalism socialism and democracy (3rd ed) New York Harper and
Row
Shahid Q (2011) Antecedents and outcomes of entrepreneurial firms marketing capabilities
An empirical investigation of small technology based firm Journal of Strategic Innovation
and Sustainability 6(4)
Slater S F amp Narver J C (1994) Does Competitive Environment Moderate the Market
Orientation-Performance Relationship Journal of Marketing 58 46-55
Saito K A amp Villanueva D P (1981) Transaction costs of credit to the small-scale sector in
philippines Economic Development and Cultural Change 29(3) 631-640
Sertvanich K (2005) Must Correct SMEs Filature Bangkok C-Education
Tsai M T amp Shih C M (2004) The impact of marketing knowledge among managers on
marketing capabilities and business performance International Journal of Management
21(4) 524-530
Thompson A A amp Strickland A J (2003) Strategic Management Concepts and Case (11th ed)
New York McGraw-Hill
Urabe K Child J amp Kagono T ( 1 9 8 8 ) Innovation and Management International
Comparisons The concept of fit in contingency theory Berlin Walter de Gruyter amp Co
Vorhies D W (1998) An investigation of the factors leading to the development of marketing
capabilities and organizational effectiveness Journal of Strategic Marketing 6(1) 3-23
Weerawardena J (2003) The role of marketing capability in innovation ndash Based competitive
strategy Journal of Strategy Marketing 11 15-35
386
Weerawardena J O Cass A amp Julian C (2002) lsquoDoes industry matter Examining the role
of industry structure in innovation-based competitive marketing strategy Journal of
Business Research 59 37-45
Wingwon B ( 2007) SMEs Business Management Department of General Management
Faculty of Management Science Lampang Rajabhat University
Wingwon B (2011) Antecedents and Outcomes of Business Strategy for SMEs
Entrepreneurs in Northern Region Faculty of Management Science Lampang Rajabhat
University
Wingwon B (2012) Effects of entrepreneurship organization capability strategic decision
making and innovation toward the competitive advantage of SMEs enterprises Journal of
Management and Sustainability 2(1) 78-93
Zimmerer T W amp Scarborough N M (2002) Essentials of Entrepreneurship and Small
Business Management (4thed) New Jersey Prentice-Hall
377
Fig 2 Analysis with SmartPLS Program (Ringle Wende and Will 2004)
The marketing capabilities factor had effect toward the competitive advantage with
coefficient path value equal to 0258 and with R2 value equal to 0594 and marketing
capabilities factor had effect toward innovation with coefficient path value equal to 0030 and
with R2 value equal to 0249 The innovation factor had effect toward competitive advantage
with coefficient path value equal to 0029 and with R2 value equal to 0594 and innovation
factor had effect toward business strategy with coefficient path value equal to 0156 and with
R2 value equal to 0479 The business strategy facto had effect toward competitive advantage
with coefficient path value equal to 0568 and with R2 value equal to 059
8 Hypothesis Test
The outcomes of hypothesis test of entrepreneurial marketing capabilities innovation and
business strategy had effect toward competitive advantage of SMEs entrepreneurs at Lanna
group of Thailand could be summarized as follows
Table 2 Outcomes of Direct Indirect and Total Effects
Dependent Variable R2 Effect Antecedent
Entrep Mkt Cap Inno Bus Stra
Compt Ad 0594 DE 0000 0258 0029 0568
IE 0579 0004 0088 0000
TE 0579 0262 0117 0568
Bus Stra 0479 DE 0600 0000 0156 NA
IE 0077 0005 0000 NA
TE 0677 0005 0000 NA
Inno 0249 DE 0477 0030 NA NA
IE 0021 0000 NA NA
TE 0498 0030 NA NA
Mkt Cap 0494 DE 0703 NA NA NA
378
IE 0000 NA NA NA
TE 0703 NA NA NA
Note TE = Total Effect DE = Direct Effect IE = Indirect Effect NA = Not Applicable
Entrep = Entrepreneurial Mkt Cap =Marketing Capabilities Innov =Innovation Bus Stra = Business
Strategy Compt Ad = Competitive Advantage
Table 2 revealed the effect factors had effect on all 4 variables for both direct and indirect
effect toward variables with full details as follows
1 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward marketing capabilities with correlation path
value equal to 0703 and R2 value equal to 0494with direct effect toward innovation with
coefficient path value equal to 0477 and with R2 value equal to 0249 with direct effect
toward business strategy with coefficient path value equal to 0600 and with R2 value equal to
0479 and with indirect effect toward competitive advantage with coefficient path value equal
to 0579 and with R2 value equal to 0594
2 Marketing capabilities had direct effect toward innovation with coefficient path value
equal to 0030 with R2 value equal to 0249 with indirect effect toward business strategy with
coefficient path value equal to 0005 with R2 value equal to 0479 with direct effect toward
competitive advantage with coefficient path value equal to 0258 and with indirect effect
toward competitive advantage with coefficient path value equal to 0004 and with R2 value
equal to 0594
3 Innovation had direct effect toward business strategy with coefficient path value equal to
0156 with R2 value equal to 0479 with direct effect toward competitive advantage with
coefficient path value equal to 0029 and with R2 value equal to 0594 with indirect effect
toward competitive advantage with coefficient path value equal to 0088 and with R2 value
equal to 0594
4 Business strategy had direct effect toward competitive advantage with coefficient path
value equal to 0568 and with R2 value equal to 0594
Table 3 Outcomes of Hypothesis Test
Research Hypothesis Coef t-stat Outcomes
H1 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Marketing Capabilities
0702 848 Supported
H2 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Innovation 0477 442 Supported
H2 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Business Strategy 0600 1147 Supported
379
H4 Marketing Capabilities had direct effect toward Innovation 0029 024 Not Supported
H2 Innovation had effect toward Business Strategy 0156 196 Supported
H2 Marketing Capability had effect toward Competitive Advantage 0257 226 Supported
H7 Innovation had effect toward Competitive Advantage 0028 105 Not Supported
H9 Business Strategy had effect toward Competitive Advantage 0568 582 Supported
Remark t-stat ge 182 indicated that hypothesis with statistical significance at 005 level
Table 3 revealed outcomes of hypothesis test which could be summarized as follows
Hypothesis 1 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Marketing Capabilities
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that entrepreneurial had direct effect toward
marketing capabilities with coefficient path value equal to 0702 and with t-stat value equal
to 848 which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 2 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Innovation
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that entrepreneurial had direct effect toward
innovation with coefficient path value equal to 0477 and with t-state value equal to 442
which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 3 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Business Strategy
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that entrepreneurial had direct effect toward
business strategy at coefficient path value equal to 0600 and with t-state value equal to 1147
which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 4 Marketing Capabilities had direct effect toward Innovation
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that marketing capabilities had direct effect toward
innovation with coefficient path value equal to 0029 and t-stat value equal to 024 which not
supported by hypothesis
Hypothesis 5 Innovation had direct effect toward Business Strategy
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that innovation had direct effect toward business
strategy at coefficient path value equal to 0156 and with t-state value equal to 196 which
supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 6 Marketing Capabilities had effect toward Competitive Advantage
380
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that marketing capabilities had direct effect toward
competitive advantage at coefficient path value equal to 0257 and with t-state value equal
to 226 which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 7 Innovation had effect toward Competitive Advantage
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that innovation had direct effect toward competitive
advantage with coefficient path value equal to 0028 and t-stat value equal to 105 which not
supported by hypothesis
Hypothesis 8 Business Strategy had effect toward Competitive Advantage
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that business strategy had direct effect toward
competitive advantage at coefficient path value equal to 0568 and with t-state value equal
to 582 which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Table 4 Outcomes of Composite Reliability Analysis
Construct CR AVE R2 Construct
Entrep Mkt Cap Inno Bus Stra Compt Ad
Entrep 0935 0534 - 0730
Mkt Cap 0936 0620 0494 0743 0790
Inno 0964 0731 0248 0678 0614 0855
Bus Stra 0942 0645 0478 0455 0381 0498 0803
Compt Ad 0942 0700 0594 0626 0624 0702 0365 0837
Note CR = composite reliability AVE = Average Variance Extracted
Entrep = Entrepreneurial Mkt Cap = Marketing Capabilities Innov = Innovation Bus Stra =Business
Strategy
Compt Ad = Competitive Advantage
Table 4 revealed the composite reliability value of every variable and with AVE value higher
than 050 which indicated that all questions of each indicator were able to measure the value
with reliability and coefficient value of each individual indicator within the same variable had
higher coefficient value than coefficient of the different variable It indicated that
measurement of each construct was able to effectively measure own context which
confirmed its composite reliability
381
9 Research Outcomes Discussion
The majority of SMEs entrepreneurs in Lanna group of Thailand were female in
gender with average age between 31-40 years old which in line with the study of Silverstein
and Sayre (2009 pp 48-90) who stated that female entrepreneurs were more delicate
tolerate and determine in managing business than male in certain situation with particular
on the task which had to deal with relationship with others of both internal and external
organization It could be quoted that lady would be the driver of modern economy which
aligned with the concept of Zimmerer and Scarborough (2002 pp 15-19) who described the
element of entrepreneurs as working group of 30 years old and over with undergraduate
educational level with well living standard with determination in managing business risks
with vision and determination in learning and managing business with business operation in
service sector and followed with the sale distribution representative or commercial sector
with duration in business operation of 1-5 years and followed with 6-10 years with majority
of capital investment from owner private fund with business operation at profitable level and
followed with continued business growth
The majority of SMErsquos entrepreneurs had rather high entrepreneurial marketing
capabilities innovation business strategy which aligned with the concept of Shahid Qureshi
(2010) who discovered that entrepreneurial business strategy and marketing capability had
effect toward the success of enterprises The research outcomes of Wingwon (2012 pp 1-
14) summarized that entrepreneurial strategic decision making and innovation had positive
effect toward competitive advantage of small and medium enterprises by entrepreneurial
had indirect effect toward the competitive advantage of SMEs through innovation Lastly the
competitive advantage had rather high importance as it consisted of the creating of
differentiation cost leadership and focus on core business which matched with the concept
of Barney (1991 pp 99-120) which stated that competitive advantage as perceived by
customers was the higher value of products or services over competitors which could not be
substituted or compared against other offers and with higher switching costs When
comparing the performance outcomes with competitive advantage it revealed the marketing
advantage price competitiveness lower discount than competitors high quality of products
or services durability and innovation
The outcomes of structural equation model revealed that entrepreneurial had direct
effect toward marketing capability which demonstrated that entrepreneurial was the
supporting mechanism for organization in searching for new market and in introducing new
products in market and generated the marketing capability (Liu Luo and Shi 2002 pp 367-
382) It also played the critical role in product and service development (Kerin 1992 pp 331-
334) by applying entrepreneurial as the owner role in creative thinking and risk taking in
operating new business Therefore entrepreneurial had important role for leading the
organization toward marketing capabilities
382
Furthermore entrepreneurial had direct effect toward business strategy which confirmed
with the study of Wingwon (2007) which summarized that entrepreneurship risk
management inspiration and determination of staff and relevant stakeholders It included
the business capacity in operating future business (Wingwon 2007 p 49) with flexibility in
modifying target strategy and proactive operation in order to cope with the evolved changing
environment The research study pointed out the importance of business strategy of SMEs
that supported the SMErsquos sustainability and competitive advantage (Chen and Hambrick 1995
Hitt et al 1991 Storey 1994)
In addition entrepreneurial had direct effect toward innovation with aligned with the
concept of Schumpeter (1994) who quoted the importance of entrepreneurs in innovation
development He pointed out that innovation would assist the economic growth Hence
entrepreneurs had important role in developing innovation and it would in turn assisted
entrepreneurs in achieving business success
Lastly entrepreneurial had indirect effect toward competitive advantage through
marketing capabilities innovation and business strategy which conformed with research work
of Jia ndash Sheng Lee Chia-Jung Hsich (2010) It revealed that entrepreneurial had direct effect
toward marketing capabilities ability in creating innovation sustainable competitive
advantage and entrepreneurial had indirect effect toward sustainable competitive advantage
through marketing capabilities and innovation capability Shahid Qureshi (2010) had also
concluded that entrepreneurial business strategy marketing capability had effect toward
the success of SMEs
10 Research Recommendations
1 The study of entrepreneurial by applying different sampling groups with larger sampling
size The study should cover the large enterprises for comparison on the perception of
entrepreneurial of SMEs against the large enterprises
2 Government sector ought to fully aware and support the knowledge learning on
innovation development on continuous basis for entrepreneurs to applying such knowledge in
supporting competitive advantage and leading the economic development of the country as a
whole
11 References
Ana M M amp Jos C (2008) Entrepreneurial Orientation and Growth of SMEs A Causal
Model Entrepreneurship Theory
Afzal S (2010) Marketing capability strategy and business performance in emerging markets
of Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities 7(2)
Barney J ( 1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage Journal of
Management 17(1) 99ndash120
383
Bougheas S Mizen P amp Yalcin C (2004) Access to External Finance Theory and Evidence
on the Impact of Firm-Specific Characteristic Research Department Working Paper 4 6
Bannock G ( 2005) Economics and Management of Small Business An International
Perspective London Routledge
Boone L E amp Kurtz D L (2010) Contemporary Business (13th ed) New York John Wiley amp Sons
Bygrave W D amp Hofer C W ( 1991) Theorizing about Entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice 16(2) 13
Casey D (1996) Managing Learning Organizations Buckingham Open University Press
Covin J G amp Slevin D P (1991) A Conceptual Model of Entrepreneurship as Firm Behavior
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 16 7-25
Chen M amp Hambrick D C (1995) Speed stealth and selective attach How small firms
differ from large firms in competitive behavior Academy of Management Journal 38(2)
453ndash482
Cronbach L J (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests Psychometrika 16 297-
334
Department of Business Development (2011) Department of Business Development Annual
Report 2011 Bangkok Department of Business Development Ministry of Commerce
Drucker E P (1985) The discipline of innovation Harvard Business Review 67-72
Damanpour F Szabat K A amp Evan W M ( 1989) The relationship between types of
innovation and organizational performance Journal of Management Studies 26(6) 587-
601
Davies W (2000) Derstanding Strategy Strategy and Leadership 28(5) 25-30
Gibbons A ( 1997) Innovation and the Developing System of Knowledge Production University of
Sussex
Guenzi P amp Troilo G (2006) Developing marketing capabilities for customer value creation
through marketing-sales integration Industrial Marketing Management 35(8) 974-988
Hall Peter ( 1994) Innovation Economics amp Evolution Theoretical Perspectives on Changing
Technology in Economic Systems New York Harvester Wheat sheaf
Hitt M A Hoskisson R E amp Harrison J S (1991) Strategic competitiveness in the 1990s
Challenges and opportunities for US executives Academy of Management Executive 5(2) 7ndash
22
384
Han JK Kim N Srivastava R ( 1998) Market orientation and organizational
performanceIs innovation a missing link Journal of Marketing 62 (4) 30-45
Johne A ( 1999) Successful market innovation European Journal of Innovation Management 2
6-11
Jiamjittrong V (2010) Effect of Entrepreneurial toward Business Performance of SMEs Public
Administration Doctorate Degree National Institute of Development Administration
Jia-Sheng Lee amp Chia-Jung Hsieh ( 2 0 1 0 ) A Research in Relating Entrepreneurship
Marketing Capability Innovative Capability and Sustained Competitive Advantage EABR
amp ETLC Conference Proceedings Dublin Ireland
Lertpachin C ( 2 011) Strategy for Modern Entrepreneurs amidst ASEAN Economics
Community Environment Social Sciences Journal Faculty of Social Sciences Chiangrai
Rajabhat University
Liu S X Luo amp Y Shi (2002) Integrating Customer Orientation Corporate
Entrepreneurship and Learning Orientation in Organization-in-Transition an Empirical
Study Internal Journal of Research in Marketing 19 367-382
Mintzberg H ( 1996) Five Ps for Strategy In ProcessndashConcepts Contexts and Cases
Mintzberg H and Quinn Jn Eds Upper Saddle River New Jersey Prentice Hall
Michael J S amp Kate S (2009) The female economy Harvard business review September
2009
Nelson Jorge Ribeiro Duarte (2010) The Role of Firms and Entrepreneurship on Local
Development in the egion of Vale Do Sousa Francisco Joseacute Lopes de Sousa Diniz
Neil A Morgan D W Vorhies amp Charlotte H M (2009) Market Orientation Marketing
Capabilities and Firm Performance Strategic Management Journal 30 909ndash920
Nelson J amp Ribeiro D (2010) The Role of Firms and Entrepreneurship on Local Development
in the egion of Vale Do Sousa Francisco Joseacute Lopes de Sousa Diniz
Office of Small and Medium Enterprises (2010) Small and Medium Enterprises Status Report
2010 and Trend 2011 Bangkok Office of Small and Medium Enterprises
Porter M E (1980) Competitive Strategy New York The Free Press
Porter ME (1996) What is strategy Harvard Business Review 74(6) 61-78
Porter M E (1985) Competitive Strategy Techniques for Analyzing Industries and
Competitors New York The Free Press
385
Porter M E (1998) Competitive Strategy Techniques for Analyzing Industries and
Competitors (1st ed) Illinois The Free Press
Porter M E (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations New York The Free Press
Robert W Thomas J P amp Julien R P ( 1980) Structure is not organization Business
Horizons 23(3) 14-26
Ringle C M Wende S amp Will A ( 2004) Smart PLS 20 ( M3) Germany University of
Hambury
Saengtienchom C (2012) SMEs and Country Economy [Online] Available
wwwrtcacthwww_km020220024_2-2553pdf [2555 March 10]
Schumpeter J (1994) A History of Economic Analysis London Routledge
Schumpeter J A ( 1950) Capitalism socialism and democracy (3rd ed) New York Harper and
Row
Shahid Q (2011) Antecedents and outcomes of entrepreneurial firms marketing capabilities
An empirical investigation of small technology based firm Journal of Strategic Innovation
and Sustainability 6(4)
Slater S F amp Narver J C (1994) Does Competitive Environment Moderate the Market
Orientation-Performance Relationship Journal of Marketing 58 46-55
Saito K A amp Villanueva D P (1981) Transaction costs of credit to the small-scale sector in
philippines Economic Development and Cultural Change 29(3) 631-640
Sertvanich K (2005) Must Correct SMEs Filature Bangkok C-Education
Tsai M T amp Shih C M (2004) The impact of marketing knowledge among managers on
marketing capabilities and business performance International Journal of Management
21(4) 524-530
Thompson A A amp Strickland A J (2003) Strategic Management Concepts and Case (11th ed)
New York McGraw-Hill
Urabe K Child J amp Kagono T ( 1 9 8 8 ) Innovation and Management International
Comparisons The concept of fit in contingency theory Berlin Walter de Gruyter amp Co
Vorhies D W (1998) An investigation of the factors leading to the development of marketing
capabilities and organizational effectiveness Journal of Strategic Marketing 6(1) 3-23
Weerawardena J (2003) The role of marketing capability in innovation ndash Based competitive
strategy Journal of Strategy Marketing 11 15-35
386
Weerawardena J O Cass A amp Julian C (2002) lsquoDoes industry matter Examining the role
of industry structure in innovation-based competitive marketing strategy Journal of
Business Research 59 37-45
Wingwon B ( 2007) SMEs Business Management Department of General Management
Faculty of Management Science Lampang Rajabhat University
Wingwon B (2011) Antecedents and Outcomes of Business Strategy for SMEs
Entrepreneurs in Northern Region Faculty of Management Science Lampang Rajabhat
University
Wingwon B (2012) Effects of entrepreneurship organization capability strategic decision
making and innovation toward the competitive advantage of SMEs enterprises Journal of
Management and Sustainability 2(1) 78-93
Zimmerer T W amp Scarborough N M (2002) Essentials of Entrepreneurship and Small
Business Management (4thed) New Jersey Prentice-Hall
378
IE 0000 NA NA NA
TE 0703 NA NA NA
Note TE = Total Effect DE = Direct Effect IE = Indirect Effect NA = Not Applicable
Entrep = Entrepreneurial Mkt Cap =Marketing Capabilities Innov =Innovation Bus Stra = Business
Strategy Compt Ad = Competitive Advantage
Table 2 revealed the effect factors had effect on all 4 variables for both direct and indirect
effect toward variables with full details as follows
1 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward marketing capabilities with correlation path
value equal to 0703 and R2 value equal to 0494with direct effect toward innovation with
coefficient path value equal to 0477 and with R2 value equal to 0249 with direct effect
toward business strategy with coefficient path value equal to 0600 and with R2 value equal to
0479 and with indirect effect toward competitive advantage with coefficient path value equal
to 0579 and with R2 value equal to 0594
2 Marketing capabilities had direct effect toward innovation with coefficient path value
equal to 0030 with R2 value equal to 0249 with indirect effect toward business strategy with
coefficient path value equal to 0005 with R2 value equal to 0479 with direct effect toward
competitive advantage with coefficient path value equal to 0258 and with indirect effect
toward competitive advantage with coefficient path value equal to 0004 and with R2 value
equal to 0594
3 Innovation had direct effect toward business strategy with coefficient path value equal to
0156 with R2 value equal to 0479 with direct effect toward competitive advantage with
coefficient path value equal to 0029 and with R2 value equal to 0594 with indirect effect
toward competitive advantage with coefficient path value equal to 0088 and with R2 value
equal to 0594
4 Business strategy had direct effect toward competitive advantage with coefficient path
value equal to 0568 and with R2 value equal to 0594
Table 3 Outcomes of Hypothesis Test
Research Hypothesis Coef t-stat Outcomes
H1 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Marketing Capabilities
0702 848 Supported
H2 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Innovation 0477 442 Supported
H2 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Business Strategy 0600 1147 Supported
379
H4 Marketing Capabilities had direct effect toward Innovation 0029 024 Not Supported
H2 Innovation had effect toward Business Strategy 0156 196 Supported
H2 Marketing Capability had effect toward Competitive Advantage 0257 226 Supported
H7 Innovation had effect toward Competitive Advantage 0028 105 Not Supported
H9 Business Strategy had effect toward Competitive Advantage 0568 582 Supported
Remark t-stat ge 182 indicated that hypothesis with statistical significance at 005 level
Table 3 revealed outcomes of hypothesis test which could be summarized as follows
Hypothesis 1 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Marketing Capabilities
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that entrepreneurial had direct effect toward
marketing capabilities with coefficient path value equal to 0702 and with t-stat value equal
to 848 which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 2 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Innovation
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that entrepreneurial had direct effect toward
innovation with coefficient path value equal to 0477 and with t-state value equal to 442
which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 3 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Business Strategy
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that entrepreneurial had direct effect toward
business strategy at coefficient path value equal to 0600 and with t-state value equal to 1147
which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 4 Marketing Capabilities had direct effect toward Innovation
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that marketing capabilities had direct effect toward
innovation with coefficient path value equal to 0029 and t-stat value equal to 024 which not
supported by hypothesis
Hypothesis 5 Innovation had direct effect toward Business Strategy
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that innovation had direct effect toward business
strategy at coefficient path value equal to 0156 and with t-state value equal to 196 which
supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 6 Marketing Capabilities had effect toward Competitive Advantage
380
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that marketing capabilities had direct effect toward
competitive advantage at coefficient path value equal to 0257 and with t-state value equal
to 226 which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 7 Innovation had effect toward Competitive Advantage
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that innovation had direct effect toward competitive
advantage with coefficient path value equal to 0028 and t-stat value equal to 105 which not
supported by hypothesis
Hypothesis 8 Business Strategy had effect toward Competitive Advantage
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that business strategy had direct effect toward
competitive advantage at coefficient path value equal to 0568 and with t-state value equal
to 582 which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Table 4 Outcomes of Composite Reliability Analysis
Construct CR AVE R2 Construct
Entrep Mkt Cap Inno Bus Stra Compt Ad
Entrep 0935 0534 - 0730
Mkt Cap 0936 0620 0494 0743 0790
Inno 0964 0731 0248 0678 0614 0855
Bus Stra 0942 0645 0478 0455 0381 0498 0803
Compt Ad 0942 0700 0594 0626 0624 0702 0365 0837
Note CR = composite reliability AVE = Average Variance Extracted
Entrep = Entrepreneurial Mkt Cap = Marketing Capabilities Innov = Innovation Bus Stra =Business
Strategy
Compt Ad = Competitive Advantage
Table 4 revealed the composite reliability value of every variable and with AVE value higher
than 050 which indicated that all questions of each indicator were able to measure the value
with reliability and coefficient value of each individual indicator within the same variable had
higher coefficient value than coefficient of the different variable It indicated that
measurement of each construct was able to effectively measure own context which
confirmed its composite reliability
381
9 Research Outcomes Discussion
The majority of SMEs entrepreneurs in Lanna group of Thailand were female in
gender with average age between 31-40 years old which in line with the study of Silverstein
and Sayre (2009 pp 48-90) who stated that female entrepreneurs were more delicate
tolerate and determine in managing business than male in certain situation with particular
on the task which had to deal with relationship with others of both internal and external
organization It could be quoted that lady would be the driver of modern economy which
aligned with the concept of Zimmerer and Scarborough (2002 pp 15-19) who described the
element of entrepreneurs as working group of 30 years old and over with undergraduate
educational level with well living standard with determination in managing business risks
with vision and determination in learning and managing business with business operation in
service sector and followed with the sale distribution representative or commercial sector
with duration in business operation of 1-5 years and followed with 6-10 years with majority
of capital investment from owner private fund with business operation at profitable level and
followed with continued business growth
The majority of SMErsquos entrepreneurs had rather high entrepreneurial marketing
capabilities innovation business strategy which aligned with the concept of Shahid Qureshi
(2010) who discovered that entrepreneurial business strategy and marketing capability had
effect toward the success of enterprises The research outcomes of Wingwon (2012 pp 1-
14) summarized that entrepreneurial strategic decision making and innovation had positive
effect toward competitive advantage of small and medium enterprises by entrepreneurial
had indirect effect toward the competitive advantage of SMEs through innovation Lastly the
competitive advantage had rather high importance as it consisted of the creating of
differentiation cost leadership and focus on core business which matched with the concept
of Barney (1991 pp 99-120) which stated that competitive advantage as perceived by
customers was the higher value of products or services over competitors which could not be
substituted or compared against other offers and with higher switching costs When
comparing the performance outcomes with competitive advantage it revealed the marketing
advantage price competitiveness lower discount than competitors high quality of products
or services durability and innovation
The outcomes of structural equation model revealed that entrepreneurial had direct
effect toward marketing capability which demonstrated that entrepreneurial was the
supporting mechanism for organization in searching for new market and in introducing new
products in market and generated the marketing capability (Liu Luo and Shi 2002 pp 367-
382) It also played the critical role in product and service development (Kerin 1992 pp 331-
334) by applying entrepreneurial as the owner role in creative thinking and risk taking in
operating new business Therefore entrepreneurial had important role for leading the
organization toward marketing capabilities
382
Furthermore entrepreneurial had direct effect toward business strategy which confirmed
with the study of Wingwon (2007) which summarized that entrepreneurship risk
management inspiration and determination of staff and relevant stakeholders It included
the business capacity in operating future business (Wingwon 2007 p 49) with flexibility in
modifying target strategy and proactive operation in order to cope with the evolved changing
environment The research study pointed out the importance of business strategy of SMEs
that supported the SMErsquos sustainability and competitive advantage (Chen and Hambrick 1995
Hitt et al 1991 Storey 1994)
In addition entrepreneurial had direct effect toward innovation with aligned with the
concept of Schumpeter (1994) who quoted the importance of entrepreneurs in innovation
development He pointed out that innovation would assist the economic growth Hence
entrepreneurs had important role in developing innovation and it would in turn assisted
entrepreneurs in achieving business success
Lastly entrepreneurial had indirect effect toward competitive advantage through
marketing capabilities innovation and business strategy which conformed with research work
of Jia ndash Sheng Lee Chia-Jung Hsich (2010) It revealed that entrepreneurial had direct effect
toward marketing capabilities ability in creating innovation sustainable competitive
advantage and entrepreneurial had indirect effect toward sustainable competitive advantage
through marketing capabilities and innovation capability Shahid Qureshi (2010) had also
concluded that entrepreneurial business strategy marketing capability had effect toward
the success of SMEs
10 Research Recommendations
1 The study of entrepreneurial by applying different sampling groups with larger sampling
size The study should cover the large enterprises for comparison on the perception of
entrepreneurial of SMEs against the large enterprises
2 Government sector ought to fully aware and support the knowledge learning on
innovation development on continuous basis for entrepreneurs to applying such knowledge in
supporting competitive advantage and leading the economic development of the country as a
whole
11 References
Ana M M amp Jos C (2008) Entrepreneurial Orientation and Growth of SMEs A Causal
Model Entrepreneurship Theory
Afzal S (2010) Marketing capability strategy and business performance in emerging markets
of Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities 7(2)
Barney J ( 1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage Journal of
Management 17(1) 99ndash120
383
Bougheas S Mizen P amp Yalcin C (2004) Access to External Finance Theory and Evidence
on the Impact of Firm-Specific Characteristic Research Department Working Paper 4 6
Bannock G ( 2005) Economics and Management of Small Business An International
Perspective London Routledge
Boone L E amp Kurtz D L (2010) Contemporary Business (13th ed) New York John Wiley amp Sons
Bygrave W D amp Hofer C W ( 1991) Theorizing about Entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice 16(2) 13
Casey D (1996) Managing Learning Organizations Buckingham Open University Press
Covin J G amp Slevin D P (1991) A Conceptual Model of Entrepreneurship as Firm Behavior
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 16 7-25
Chen M amp Hambrick D C (1995) Speed stealth and selective attach How small firms
differ from large firms in competitive behavior Academy of Management Journal 38(2)
453ndash482
Cronbach L J (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests Psychometrika 16 297-
334
Department of Business Development (2011) Department of Business Development Annual
Report 2011 Bangkok Department of Business Development Ministry of Commerce
Drucker E P (1985) The discipline of innovation Harvard Business Review 67-72
Damanpour F Szabat K A amp Evan W M ( 1989) The relationship between types of
innovation and organizational performance Journal of Management Studies 26(6) 587-
601
Davies W (2000) Derstanding Strategy Strategy and Leadership 28(5) 25-30
Gibbons A ( 1997) Innovation and the Developing System of Knowledge Production University of
Sussex
Guenzi P amp Troilo G (2006) Developing marketing capabilities for customer value creation
through marketing-sales integration Industrial Marketing Management 35(8) 974-988
Hall Peter ( 1994) Innovation Economics amp Evolution Theoretical Perspectives on Changing
Technology in Economic Systems New York Harvester Wheat sheaf
Hitt M A Hoskisson R E amp Harrison J S (1991) Strategic competitiveness in the 1990s
Challenges and opportunities for US executives Academy of Management Executive 5(2) 7ndash
22
384
Han JK Kim N Srivastava R ( 1998) Market orientation and organizational
performanceIs innovation a missing link Journal of Marketing 62 (4) 30-45
Johne A ( 1999) Successful market innovation European Journal of Innovation Management 2
6-11
Jiamjittrong V (2010) Effect of Entrepreneurial toward Business Performance of SMEs Public
Administration Doctorate Degree National Institute of Development Administration
Jia-Sheng Lee amp Chia-Jung Hsieh ( 2 0 1 0 ) A Research in Relating Entrepreneurship
Marketing Capability Innovative Capability and Sustained Competitive Advantage EABR
amp ETLC Conference Proceedings Dublin Ireland
Lertpachin C ( 2 011) Strategy for Modern Entrepreneurs amidst ASEAN Economics
Community Environment Social Sciences Journal Faculty of Social Sciences Chiangrai
Rajabhat University
Liu S X Luo amp Y Shi (2002) Integrating Customer Orientation Corporate
Entrepreneurship and Learning Orientation in Organization-in-Transition an Empirical
Study Internal Journal of Research in Marketing 19 367-382
Mintzberg H ( 1996) Five Ps for Strategy In ProcessndashConcepts Contexts and Cases
Mintzberg H and Quinn Jn Eds Upper Saddle River New Jersey Prentice Hall
Michael J S amp Kate S (2009) The female economy Harvard business review September
2009
Nelson Jorge Ribeiro Duarte (2010) The Role of Firms and Entrepreneurship on Local
Development in the egion of Vale Do Sousa Francisco Joseacute Lopes de Sousa Diniz
Neil A Morgan D W Vorhies amp Charlotte H M (2009) Market Orientation Marketing
Capabilities and Firm Performance Strategic Management Journal 30 909ndash920
Nelson J amp Ribeiro D (2010) The Role of Firms and Entrepreneurship on Local Development
in the egion of Vale Do Sousa Francisco Joseacute Lopes de Sousa Diniz
Office of Small and Medium Enterprises (2010) Small and Medium Enterprises Status Report
2010 and Trend 2011 Bangkok Office of Small and Medium Enterprises
Porter M E (1980) Competitive Strategy New York The Free Press
Porter ME (1996) What is strategy Harvard Business Review 74(6) 61-78
Porter M E (1985) Competitive Strategy Techniques for Analyzing Industries and
Competitors New York The Free Press
385
Porter M E (1998) Competitive Strategy Techniques for Analyzing Industries and
Competitors (1st ed) Illinois The Free Press
Porter M E (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations New York The Free Press
Robert W Thomas J P amp Julien R P ( 1980) Structure is not organization Business
Horizons 23(3) 14-26
Ringle C M Wende S amp Will A ( 2004) Smart PLS 20 ( M3) Germany University of
Hambury
Saengtienchom C (2012) SMEs and Country Economy [Online] Available
wwwrtcacthwww_km020220024_2-2553pdf [2555 March 10]
Schumpeter J (1994) A History of Economic Analysis London Routledge
Schumpeter J A ( 1950) Capitalism socialism and democracy (3rd ed) New York Harper and
Row
Shahid Q (2011) Antecedents and outcomes of entrepreneurial firms marketing capabilities
An empirical investigation of small technology based firm Journal of Strategic Innovation
and Sustainability 6(4)
Slater S F amp Narver J C (1994) Does Competitive Environment Moderate the Market
Orientation-Performance Relationship Journal of Marketing 58 46-55
Saito K A amp Villanueva D P (1981) Transaction costs of credit to the small-scale sector in
philippines Economic Development and Cultural Change 29(3) 631-640
Sertvanich K (2005) Must Correct SMEs Filature Bangkok C-Education
Tsai M T amp Shih C M (2004) The impact of marketing knowledge among managers on
marketing capabilities and business performance International Journal of Management
21(4) 524-530
Thompson A A amp Strickland A J (2003) Strategic Management Concepts and Case (11th ed)
New York McGraw-Hill
Urabe K Child J amp Kagono T ( 1 9 8 8 ) Innovation and Management International
Comparisons The concept of fit in contingency theory Berlin Walter de Gruyter amp Co
Vorhies D W (1998) An investigation of the factors leading to the development of marketing
capabilities and organizational effectiveness Journal of Strategic Marketing 6(1) 3-23
Weerawardena J (2003) The role of marketing capability in innovation ndash Based competitive
strategy Journal of Strategy Marketing 11 15-35
386
Weerawardena J O Cass A amp Julian C (2002) lsquoDoes industry matter Examining the role
of industry structure in innovation-based competitive marketing strategy Journal of
Business Research 59 37-45
Wingwon B ( 2007) SMEs Business Management Department of General Management
Faculty of Management Science Lampang Rajabhat University
Wingwon B (2011) Antecedents and Outcomes of Business Strategy for SMEs
Entrepreneurs in Northern Region Faculty of Management Science Lampang Rajabhat
University
Wingwon B (2012) Effects of entrepreneurship organization capability strategic decision
making and innovation toward the competitive advantage of SMEs enterprises Journal of
Management and Sustainability 2(1) 78-93
Zimmerer T W amp Scarborough N M (2002) Essentials of Entrepreneurship and Small
Business Management (4thed) New Jersey Prentice-Hall
379
H4 Marketing Capabilities had direct effect toward Innovation 0029 024 Not Supported
H2 Innovation had effect toward Business Strategy 0156 196 Supported
H2 Marketing Capability had effect toward Competitive Advantage 0257 226 Supported
H7 Innovation had effect toward Competitive Advantage 0028 105 Not Supported
H9 Business Strategy had effect toward Competitive Advantage 0568 582 Supported
Remark t-stat ge 182 indicated that hypothesis with statistical significance at 005 level
Table 3 revealed outcomes of hypothesis test which could be summarized as follows
Hypothesis 1 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Marketing Capabilities
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that entrepreneurial had direct effect toward
marketing capabilities with coefficient path value equal to 0702 and with t-stat value equal
to 848 which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 2 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Innovation
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that entrepreneurial had direct effect toward
innovation with coefficient path value equal to 0477 and with t-state value equal to 442
which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 3 Entrepreneurial had direct effect toward Business Strategy
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that entrepreneurial had direct effect toward
business strategy at coefficient path value equal to 0600 and with t-state value equal to 1147
which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 4 Marketing Capabilities had direct effect toward Innovation
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that marketing capabilities had direct effect toward
innovation with coefficient path value equal to 0029 and t-stat value equal to 024 which not
supported by hypothesis
Hypothesis 5 Innovation had direct effect toward Business Strategy
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that innovation had direct effect toward business
strategy at coefficient path value equal to 0156 and with t-state value equal to 196 which
supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 6 Marketing Capabilities had effect toward Competitive Advantage
380
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that marketing capabilities had direct effect toward
competitive advantage at coefficient path value equal to 0257 and with t-state value equal
to 226 which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 7 Innovation had effect toward Competitive Advantage
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that innovation had direct effect toward competitive
advantage with coefficient path value equal to 0028 and t-stat value equal to 105 which not
supported by hypothesis
Hypothesis 8 Business Strategy had effect toward Competitive Advantage
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that business strategy had direct effect toward
competitive advantage at coefficient path value equal to 0568 and with t-state value equal
to 582 which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Table 4 Outcomes of Composite Reliability Analysis
Construct CR AVE R2 Construct
Entrep Mkt Cap Inno Bus Stra Compt Ad
Entrep 0935 0534 - 0730
Mkt Cap 0936 0620 0494 0743 0790
Inno 0964 0731 0248 0678 0614 0855
Bus Stra 0942 0645 0478 0455 0381 0498 0803
Compt Ad 0942 0700 0594 0626 0624 0702 0365 0837
Note CR = composite reliability AVE = Average Variance Extracted
Entrep = Entrepreneurial Mkt Cap = Marketing Capabilities Innov = Innovation Bus Stra =Business
Strategy
Compt Ad = Competitive Advantage
Table 4 revealed the composite reliability value of every variable and with AVE value higher
than 050 which indicated that all questions of each indicator were able to measure the value
with reliability and coefficient value of each individual indicator within the same variable had
higher coefficient value than coefficient of the different variable It indicated that
measurement of each construct was able to effectively measure own context which
confirmed its composite reliability
381
9 Research Outcomes Discussion
The majority of SMEs entrepreneurs in Lanna group of Thailand were female in
gender with average age between 31-40 years old which in line with the study of Silverstein
and Sayre (2009 pp 48-90) who stated that female entrepreneurs were more delicate
tolerate and determine in managing business than male in certain situation with particular
on the task which had to deal with relationship with others of both internal and external
organization It could be quoted that lady would be the driver of modern economy which
aligned with the concept of Zimmerer and Scarborough (2002 pp 15-19) who described the
element of entrepreneurs as working group of 30 years old and over with undergraduate
educational level with well living standard with determination in managing business risks
with vision and determination in learning and managing business with business operation in
service sector and followed with the sale distribution representative or commercial sector
with duration in business operation of 1-5 years and followed with 6-10 years with majority
of capital investment from owner private fund with business operation at profitable level and
followed with continued business growth
The majority of SMErsquos entrepreneurs had rather high entrepreneurial marketing
capabilities innovation business strategy which aligned with the concept of Shahid Qureshi
(2010) who discovered that entrepreneurial business strategy and marketing capability had
effect toward the success of enterprises The research outcomes of Wingwon (2012 pp 1-
14) summarized that entrepreneurial strategic decision making and innovation had positive
effect toward competitive advantage of small and medium enterprises by entrepreneurial
had indirect effect toward the competitive advantage of SMEs through innovation Lastly the
competitive advantage had rather high importance as it consisted of the creating of
differentiation cost leadership and focus on core business which matched with the concept
of Barney (1991 pp 99-120) which stated that competitive advantage as perceived by
customers was the higher value of products or services over competitors which could not be
substituted or compared against other offers and with higher switching costs When
comparing the performance outcomes with competitive advantage it revealed the marketing
advantage price competitiveness lower discount than competitors high quality of products
or services durability and innovation
The outcomes of structural equation model revealed that entrepreneurial had direct
effect toward marketing capability which demonstrated that entrepreneurial was the
supporting mechanism for organization in searching for new market and in introducing new
products in market and generated the marketing capability (Liu Luo and Shi 2002 pp 367-
382) It also played the critical role in product and service development (Kerin 1992 pp 331-
334) by applying entrepreneurial as the owner role in creative thinking and risk taking in
operating new business Therefore entrepreneurial had important role for leading the
organization toward marketing capabilities
382
Furthermore entrepreneurial had direct effect toward business strategy which confirmed
with the study of Wingwon (2007) which summarized that entrepreneurship risk
management inspiration and determination of staff and relevant stakeholders It included
the business capacity in operating future business (Wingwon 2007 p 49) with flexibility in
modifying target strategy and proactive operation in order to cope with the evolved changing
environment The research study pointed out the importance of business strategy of SMEs
that supported the SMErsquos sustainability and competitive advantage (Chen and Hambrick 1995
Hitt et al 1991 Storey 1994)
In addition entrepreneurial had direct effect toward innovation with aligned with the
concept of Schumpeter (1994) who quoted the importance of entrepreneurs in innovation
development He pointed out that innovation would assist the economic growth Hence
entrepreneurs had important role in developing innovation and it would in turn assisted
entrepreneurs in achieving business success
Lastly entrepreneurial had indirect effect toward competitive advantage through
marketing capabilities innovation and business strategy which conformed with research work
of Jia ndash Sheng Lee Chia-Jung Hsich (2010) It revealed that entrepreneurial had direct effect
toward marketing capabilities ability in creating innovation sustainable competitive
advantage and entrepreneurial had indirect effect toward sustainable competitive advantage
through marketing capabilities and innovation capability Shahid Qureshi (2010) had also
concluded that entrepreneurial business strategy marketing capability had effect toward
the success of SMEs
10 Research Recommendations
1 The study of entrepreneurial by applying different sampling groups with larger sampling
size The study should cover the large enterprises for comparison on the perception of
entrepreneurial of SMEs against the large enterprises
2 Government sector ought to fully aware and support the knowledge learning on
innovation development on continuous basis for entrepreneurs to applying such knowledge in
supporting competitive advantage and leading the economic development of the country as a
whole
11 References
Ana M M amp Jos C (2008) Entrepreneurial Orientation and Growth of SMEs A Causal
Model Entrepreneurship Theory
Afzal S (2010) Marketing capability strategy and business performance in emerging markets
of Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities 7(2)
Barney J ( 1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage Journal of
Management 17(1) 99ndash120
383
Bougheas S Mizen P amp Yalcin C (2004) Access to External Finance Theory and Evidence
on the Impact of Firm-Specific Characteristic Research Department Working Paper 4 6
Bannock G ( 2005) Economics and Management of Small Business An International
Perspective London Routledge
Boone L E amp Kurtz D L (2010) Contemporary Business (13th ed) New York John Wiley amp Sons
Bygrave W D amp Hofer C W ( 1991) Theorizing about Entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice 16(2) 13
Casey D (1996) Managing Learning Organizations Buckingham Open University Press
Covin J G amp Slevin D P (1991) A Conceptual Model of Entrepreneurship as Firm Behavior
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 16 7-25
Chen M amp Hambrick D C (1995) Speed stealth and selective attach How small firms
differ from large firms in competitive behavior Academy of Management Journal 38(2)
453ndash482
Cronbach L J (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests Psychometrika 16 297-
334
Department of Business Development (2011) Department of Business Development Annual
Report 2011 Bangkok Department of Business Development Ministry of Commerce
Drucker E P (1985) The discipline of innovation Harvard Business Review 67-72
Damanpour F Szabat K A amp Evan W M ( 1989) The relationship between types of
innovation and organizational performance Journal of Management Studies 26(6) 587-
601
Davies W (2000) Derstanding Strategy Strategy and Leadership 28(5) 25-30
Gibbons A ( 1997) Innovation and the Developing System of Knowledge Production University of
Sussex
Guenzi P amp Troilo G (2006) Developing marketing capabilities for customer value creation
through marketing-sales integration Industrial Marketing Management 35(8) 974-988
Hall Peter ( 1994) Innovation Economics amp Evolution Theoretical Perspectives on Changing
Technology in Economic Systems New York Harvester Wheat sheaf
Hitt M A Hoskisson R E amp Harrison J S (1991) Strategic competitiveness in the 1990s
Challenges and opportunities for US executives Academy of Management Executive 5(2) 7ndash
22
384
Han JK Kim N Srivastava R ( 1998) Market orientation and organizational
performanceIs innovation a missing link Journal of Marketing 62 (4) 30-45
Johne A ( 1999) Successful market innovation European Journal of Innovation Management 2
6-11
Jiamjittrong V (2010) Effect of Entrepreneurial toward Business Performance of SMEs Public
Administration Doctorate Degree National Institute of Development Administration
Jia-Sheng Lee amp Chia-Jung Hsieh ( 2 0 1 0 ) A Research in Relating Entrepreneurship
Marketing Capability Innovative Capability and Sustained Competitive Advantage EABR
amp ETLC Conference Proceedings Dublin Ireland
Lertpachin C ( 2 011) Strategy for Modern Entrepreneurs amidst ASEAN Economics
Community Environment Social Sciences Journal Faculty of Social Sciences Chiangrai
Rajabhat University
Liu S X Luo amp Y Shi (2002) Integrating Customer Orientation Corporate
Entrepreneurship and Learning Orientation in Organization-in-Transition an Empirical
Study Internal Journal of Research in Marketing 19 367-382
Mintzberg H ( 1996) Five Ps for Strategy In ProcessndashConcepts Contexts and Cases
Mintzberg H and Quinn Jn Eds Upper Saddle River New Jersey Prentice Hall
Michael J S amp Kate S (2009) The female economy Harvard business review September
2009
Nelson Jorge Ribeiro Duarte (2010) The Role of Firms and Entrepreneurship on Local
Development in the egion of Vale Do Sousa Francisco Joseacute Lopes de Sousa Diniz
Neil A Morgan D W Vorhies amp Charlotte H M (2009) Market Orientation Marketing
Capabilities and Firm Performance Strategic Management Journal 30 909ndash920
Nelson J amp Ribeiro D (2010) The Role of Firms and Entrepreneurship on Local Development
in the egion of Vale Do Sousa Francisco Joseacute Lopes de Sousa Diniz
Office of Small and Medium Enterprises (2010) Small and Medium Enterprises Status Report
2010 and Trend 2011 Bangkok Office of Small and Medium Enterprises
Porter M E (1980) Competitive Strategy New York The Free Press
Porter ME (1996) What is strategy Harvard Business Review 74(6) 61-78
Porter M E (1985) Competitive Strategy Techniques for Analyzing Industries and
Competitors New York The Free Press
385
Porter M E (1998) Competitive Strategy Techniques for Analyzing Industries and
Competitors (1st ed) Illinois The Free Press
Porter M E (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations New York The Free Press
Robert W Thomas J P amp Julien R P ( 1980) Structure is not organization Business
Horizons 23(3) 14-26
Ringle C M Wende S amp Will A ( 2004) Smart PLS 20 ( M3) Germany University of
Hambury
Saengtienchom C (2012) SMEs and Country Economy [Online] Available
wwwrtcacthwww_km020220024_2-2553pdf [2555 March 10]
Schumpeter J (1994) A History of Economic Analysis London Routledge
Schumpeter J A ( 1950) Capitalism socialism and democracy (3rd ed) New York Harper and
Row
Shahid Q (2011) Antecedents and outcomes of entrepreneurial firms marketing capabilities
An empirical investigation of small technology based firm Journal of Strategic Innovation
and Sustainability 6(4)
Slater S F amp Narver J C (1994) Does Competitive Environment Moderate the Market
Orientation-Performance Relationship Journal of Marketing 58 46-55
Saito K A amp Villanueva D P (1981) Transaction costs of credit to the small-scale sector in
philippines Economic Development and Cultural Change 29(3) 631-640
Sertvanich K (2005) Must Correct SMEs Filature Bangkok C-Education
Tsai M T amp Shih C M (2004) The impact of marketing knowledge among managers on
marketing capabilities and business performance International Journal of Management
21(4) 524-530
Thompson A A amp Strickland A J (2003) Strategic Management Concepts and Case (11th ed)
New York McGraw-Hill
Urabe K Child J amp Kagono T ( 1 9 8 8 ) Innovation and Management International
Comparisons The concept of fit in contingency theory Berlin Walter de Gruyter amp Co
Vorhies D W (1998) An investigation of the factors leading to the development of marketing
capabilities and organizational effectiveness Journal of Strategic Marketing 6(1) 3-23
Weerawardena J (2003) The role of marketing capability in innovation ndash Based competitive
strategy Journal of Strategy Marketing 11 15-35
386
Weerawardena J O Cass A amp Julian C (2002) lsquoDoes industry matter Examining the role
of industry structure in innovation-based competitive marketing strategy Journal of
Business Research 59 37-45
Wingwon B ( 2007) SMEs Business Management Department of General Management
Faculty of Management Science Lampang Rajabhat University
Wingwon B (2011) Antecedents and Outcomes of Business Strategy for SMEs
Entrepreneurs in Northern Region Faculty of Management Science Lampang Rajabhat
University
Wingwon B (2012) Effects of entrepreneurship organization capability strategic decision
making and innovation toward the competitive advantage of SMEs enterprises Journal of
Management and Sustainability 2(1) 78-93
Zimmerer T W amp Scarborough N M (2002) Essentials of Entrepreneurship and Small
Business Management (4thed) New Jersey Prentice-Hall
380
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that marketing capabilities had direct effect toward
competitive advantage at coefficient path value equal to 0257 and with t-state value equal
to 226 which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Hypothesis 7 Innovation had effect toward Competitive Advantage
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that innovation had direct effect toward competitive
advantage with coefficient path value equal to 0028 and t-stat value equal to 105 which not
supported by hypothesis
Hypothesis 8 Business Strategy had effect toward Competitive Advantage
Outcomes of hypothesis test revealed that business strategy had direct effect toward
competitive advantage at coefficient path value equal to 0568 and with t-state value equal
to 582 which supported hypothesis at statistical significance level of 005
Table 4 Outcomes of Composite Reliability Analysis
Construct CR AVE R2 Construct
Entrep Mkt Cap Inno Bus Stra Compt Ad
Entrep 0935 0534 - 0730
Mkt Cap 0936 0620 0494 0743 0790
Inno 0964 0731 0248 0678 0614 0855
Bus Stra 0942 0645 0478 0455 0381 0498 0803
Compt Ad 0942 0700 0594 0626 0624 0702 0365 0837
Note CR = composite reliability AVE = Average Variance Extracted
Entrep = Entrepreneurial Mkt Cap = Marketing Capabilities Innov = Innovation Bus Stra =Business
Strategy
Compt Ad = Competitive Advantage
Table 4 revealed the composite reliability value of every variable and with AVE value higher
than 050 which indicated that all questions of each indicator were able to measure the value
with reliability and coefficient value of each individual indicator within the same variable had
higher coefficient value than coefficient of the different variable It indicated that
measurement of each construct was able to effectively measure own context which
confirmed its composite reliability
381
9 Research Outcomes Discussion
The majority of SMEs entrepreneurs in Lanna group of Thailand were female in
gender with average age between 31-40 years old which in line with the study of Silverstein
and Sayre (2009 pp 48-90) who stated that female entrepreneurs were more delicate
tolerate and determine in managing business than male in certain situation with particular
on the task which had to deal with relationship with others of both internal and external
organization It could be quoted that lady would be the driver of modern economy which
aligned with the concept of Zimmerer and Scarborough (2002 pp 15-19) who described the
element of entrepreneurs as working group of 30 years old and over with undergraduate
educational level with well living standard with determination in managing business risks
with vision and determination in learning and managing business with business operation in
service sector and followed with the sale distribution representative or commercial sector
with duration in business operation of 1-5 years and followed with 6-10 years with majority
of capital investment from owner private fund with business operation at profitable level and
followed with continued business growth
The majority of SMErsquos entrepreneurs had rather high entrepreneurial marketing
capabilities innovation business strategy which aligned with the concept of Shahid Qureshi
(2010) who discovered that entrepreneurial business strategy and marketing capability had
effect toward the success of enterprises The research outcomes of Wingwon (2012 pp 1-
14) summarized that entrepreneurial strategic decision making and innovation had positive
effect toward competitive advantage of small and medium enterprises by entrepreneurial
had indirect effect toward the competitive advantage of SMEs through innovation Lastly the
competitive advantage had rather high importance as it consisted of the creating of
differentiation cost leadership and focus on core business which matched with the concept
of Barney (1991 pp 99-120) which stated that competitive advantage as perceived by
customers was the higher value of products or services over competitors which could not be
substituted or compared against other offers and with higher switching costs When
comparing the performance outcomes with competitive advantage it revealed the marketing
advantage price competitiveness lower discount than competitors high quality of products
or services durability and innovation
The outcomes of structural equation model revealed that entrepreneurial had direct
effect toward marketing capability which demonstrated that entrepreneurial was the
supporting mechanism for organization in searching for new market and in introducing new
products in market and generated the marketing capability (Liu Luo and Shi 2002 pp 367-
382) It also played the critical role in product and service development (Kerin 1992 pp 331-
334) by applying entrepreneurial as the owner role in creative thinking and risk taking in
operating new business Therefore entrepreneurial had important role for leading the
organization toward marketing capabilities
382
Furthermore entrepreneurial had direct effect toward business strategy which confirmed
with the study of Wingwon (2007) which summarized that entrepreneurship risk
management inspiration and determination of staff and relevant stakeholders It included
the business capacity in operating future business (Wingwon 2007 p 49) with flexibility in
modifying target strategy and proactive operation in order to cope with the evolved changing
environment The research study pointed out the importance of business strategy of SMEs
that supported the SMErsquos sustainability and competitive advantage (Chen and Hambrick 1995
Hitt et al 1991 Storey 1994)
In addition entrepreneurial had direct effect toward innovation with aligned with the
concept of Schumpeter (1994) who quoted the importance of entrepreneurs in innovation
development He pointed out that innovation would assist the economic growth Hence
entrepreneurs had important role in developing innovation and it would in turn assisted
entrepreneurs in achieving business success
Lastly entrepreneurial had indirect effect toward competitive advantage through
marketing capabilities innovation and business strategy which conformed with research work
of Jia ndash Sheng Lee Chia-Jung Hsich (2010) It revealed that entrepreneurial had direct effect
toward marketing capabilities ability in creating innovation sustainable competitive
advantage and entrepreneurial had indirect effect toward sustainable competitive advantage
through marketing capabilities and innovation capability Shahid Qureshi (2010) had also
concluded that entrepreneurial business strategy marketing capability had effect toward
the success of SMEs
10 Research Recommendations
1 The study of entrepreneurial by applying different sampling groups with larger sampling
size The study should cover the large enterprises for comparison on the perception of
entrepreneurial of SMEs against the large enterprises
2 Government sector ought to fully aware and support the knowledge learning on
innovation development on continuous basis for entrepreneurs to applying such knowledge in
supporting competitive advantage and leading the economic development of the country as a
whole
11 References
Ana M M amp Jos C (2008) Entrepreneurial Orientation and Growth of SMEs A Causal
Model Entrepreneurship Theory
Afzal S (2010) Marketing capability strategy and business performance in emerging markets
of Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities 7(2)
Barney J ( 1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage Journal of
Management 17(1) 99ndash120
383
Bougheas S Mizen P amp Yalcin C (2004) Access to External Finance Theory and Evidence
on the Impact of Firm-Specific Characteristic Research Department Working Paper 4 6
Bannock G ( 2005) Economics and Management of Small Business An International
Perspective London Routledge
Boone L E amp Kurtz D L (2010) Contemporary Business (13th ed) New York John Wiley amp Sons
Bygrave W D amp Hofer C W ( 1991) Theorizing about Entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice 16(2) 13
Casey D (1996) Managing Learning Organizations Buckingham Open University Press
Covin J G amp Slevin D P (1991) A Conceptual Model of Entrepreneurship as Firm Behavior
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 16 7-25
Chen M amp Hambrick D C (1995) Speed stealth and selective attach How small firms
differ from large firms in competitive behavior Academy of Management Journal 38(2)
453ndash482
Cronbach L J (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests Psychometrika 16 297-
334
Department of Business Development (2011) Department of Business Development Annual
Report 2011 Bangkok Department of Business Development Ministry of Commerce
Drucker E P (1985) The discipline of innovation Harvard Business Review 67-72
Damanpour F Szabat K A amp Evan W M ( 1989) The relationship between types of
innovation and organizational performance Journal of Management Studies 26(6) 587-
601
Davies W (2000) Derstanding Strategy Strategy and Leadership 28(5) 25-30
Gibbons A ( 1997) Innovation and the Developing System of Knowledge Production University of
Sussex
Guenzi P amp Troilo G (2006) Developing marketing capabilities for customer value creation
through marketing-sales integration Industrial Marketing Management 35(8) 974-988
Hall Peter ( 1994) Innovation Economics amp Evolution Theoretical Perspectives on Changing
Technology in Economic Systems New York Harvester Wheat sheaf
Hitt M A Hoskisson R E amp Harrison J S (1991) Strategic competitiveness in the 1990s
Challenges and opportunities for US executives Academy of Management Executive 5(2) 7ndash
22
384
Han JK Kim N Srivastava R ( 1998) Market orientation and organizational
performanceIs innovation a missing link Journal of Marketing 62 (4) 30-45
Johne A ( 1999) Successful market innovation European Journal of Innovation Management 2
6-11
Jiamjittrong V (2010) Effect of Entrepreneurial toward Business Performance of SMEs Public
Administration Doctorate Degree National Institute of Development Administration
Jia-Sheng Lee amp Chia-Jung Hsieh ( 2 0 1 0 ) A Research in Relating Entrepreneurship
Marketing Capability Innovative Capability and Sustained Competitive Advantage EABR
amp ETLC Conference Proceedings Dublin Ireland
Lertpachin C ( 2 011) Strategy for Modern Entrepreneurs amidst ASEAN Economics
Community Environment Social Sciences Journal Faculty of Social Sciences Chiangrai
Rajabhat University
Liu S X Luo amp Y Shi (2002) Integrating Customer Orientation Corporate
Entrepreneurship and Learning Orientation in Organization-in-Transition an Empirical
Study Internal Journal of Research in Marketing 19 367-382
Mintzberg H ( 1996) Five Ps for Strategy In ProcessndashConcepts Contexts and Cases
Mintzberg H and Quinn Jn Eds Upper Saddle River New Jersey Prentice Hall
Michael J S amp Kate S (2009) The female economy Harvard business review September
2009
Nelson Jorge Ribeiro Duarte (2010) The Role of Firms and Entrepreneurship on Local
Development in the egion of Vale Do Sousa Francisco Joseacute Lopes de Sousa Diniz
Neil A Morgan D W Vorhies amp Charlotte H M (2009) Market Orientation Marketing
Capabilities and Firm Performance Strategic Management Journal 30 909ndash920
Nelson J amp Ribeiro D (2010) The Role of Firms and Entrepreneurship on Local Development
in the egion of Vale Do Sousa Francisco Joseacute Lopes de Sousa Diniz
Office of Small and Medium Enterprises (2010) Small and Medium Enterprises Status Report
2010 and Trend 2011 Bangkok Office of Small and Medium Enterprises
Porter M E (1980) Competitive Strategy New York The Free Press
Porter ME (1996) What is strategy Harvard Business Review 74(6) 61-78
Porter M E (1985) Competitive Strategy Techniques for Analyzing Industries and
Competitors New York The Free Press
385
Porter M E (1998) Competitive Strategy Techniques for Analyzing Industries and
Competitors (1st ed) Illinois The Free Press
Porter M E (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations New York The Free Press
Robert W Thomas J P amp Julien R P ( 1980) Structure is not organization Business
Horizons 23(3) 14-26
Ringle C M Wende S amp Will A ( 2004) Smart PLS 20 ( M3) Germany University of
Hambury
Saengtienchom C (2012) SMEs and Country Economy [Online] Available
wwwrtcacthwww_km020220024_2-2553pdf [2555 March 10]
Schumpeter J (1994) A History of Economic Analysis London Routledge
Schumpeter J A ( 1950) Capitalism socialism and democracy (3rd ed) New York Harper and
Row
Shahid Q (2011) Antecedents and outcomes of entrepreneurial firms marketing capabilities
An empirical investigation of small technology based firm Journal of Strategic Innovation
and Sustainability 6(4)
Slater S F amp Narver J C (1994) Does Competitive Environment Moderate the Market
Orientation-Performance Relationship Journal of Marketing 58 46-55
Saito K A amp Villanueva D P (1981) Transaction costs of credit to the small-scale sector in
philippines Economic Development and Cultural Change 29(3) 631-640
Sertvanich K (2005) Must Correct SMEs Filature Bangkok C-Education
Tsai M T amp Shih C M (2004) The impact of marketing knowledge among managers on
marketing capabilities and business performance International Journal of Management
21(4) 524-530
Thompson A A amp Strickland A J (2003) Strategic Management Concepts and Case (11th ed)
New York McGraw-Hill
Urabe K Child J amp Kagono T ( 1 9 8 8 ) Innovation and Management International
Comparisons The concept of fit in contingency theory Berlin Walter de Gruyter amp Co
Vorhies D W (1998) An investigation of the factors leading to the development of marketing
capabilities and organizational effectiveness Journal of Strategic Marketing 6(1) 3-23
Weerawardena J (2003) The role of marketing capability in innovation ndash Based competitive
strategy Journal of Strategy Marketing 11 15-35
386
Weerawardena J O Cass A amp Julian C (2002) lsquoDoes industry matter Examining the role
of industry structure in innovation-based competitive marketing strategy Journal of
Business Research 59 37-45
Wingwon B ( 2007) SMEs Business Management Department of General Management
Faculty of Management Science Lampang Rajabhat University
Wingwon B (2011) Antecedents and Outcomes of Business Strategy for SMEs
Entrepreneurs in Northern Region Faculty of Management Science Lampang Rajabhat
University
Wingwon B (2012) Effects of entrepreneurship organization capability strategic decision
making and innovation toward the competitive advantage of SMEs enterprises Journal of
Management and Sustainability 2(1) 78-93
Zimmerer T W amp Scarborough N M (2002) Essentials of Entrepreneurship and Small
Business Management (4thed) New Jersey Prentice-Hall
381
9 Research Outcomes Discussion
The majority of SMEs entrepreneurs in Lanna group of Thailand were female in
gender with average age between 31-40 years old which in line with the study of Silverstein
and Sayre (2009 pp 48-90) who stated that female entrepreneurs were more delicate
tolerate and determine in managing business than male in certain situation with particular
on the task which had to deal with relationship with others of both internal and external
organization It could be quoted that lady would be the driver of modern economy which
aligned with the concept of Zimmerer and Scarborough (2002 pp 15-19) who described the
element of entrepreneurs as working group of 30 years old and over with undergraduate
educational level with well living standard with determination in managing business risks
with vision and determination in learning and managing business with business operation in
service sector and followed with the sale distribution representative or commercial sector
with duration in business operation of 1-5 years and followed with 6-10 years with majority
of capital investment from owner private fund with business operation at profitable level and
followed with continued business growth
The majority of SMErsquos entrepreneurs had rather high entrepreneurial marketing
capabilities innovation business strategy which aligned with the concept of Shahid Qureshi
(2010) who discovered that entrepreneurial business strategy and marketing capability had
effect toward the success of enterprises The research outcomes of Wingwon (2012 pp 1-
14) summarized that entrepreneurial strategic decision making and innovation had positive
effect toward competitive advantage of small and medium enterprises by entrepreneurial
had indirect effect toward the competitive advantage of SMEs through innovation Lastly the
competitive advantage had rather high importance as it consisted of the creating of
differentiation cost leadership and focus on core business which matched with the concept
of Barney (1991 pp 99-120) which stated that competitive advantage as perceived by
customers was the higher value of products or services over competitors which could not be
substituted or compared against other offers and with higher switching costs When
comparing the performance outcomes with competitive advantage it revealed the marketing
advantage price competitiveness lower discount than competitors high quality of products
or services durability and innovation
The outcomes of structural equation model revealed that entrepreneurial had direct
effect toward marketing capability which demonstrated that entrepreneurial was the
supporting mechanism for organization in searching for new market and in introducing new
products in market and generated the marketing capability (Liu Luo and Shi 2002 pp 367-
382) It also played the critical role in product and service development (Kerin 1992 pp 331-
334) by applying entrepreneurial as the owner role in creative thinking and risk taking in
operating new business Therefore entrepreneurial had important role for leading the
organization toward marketing capabilities
382
Furthermore entrepreneurial had direct effect toward business strategy which confirmed
with the study of Wingwon (2007) which summarized that entrepreneurship risk
management inspiration and determination of staff and relevant stakeholders It included
the business capacity in operating future business (Wingwon 2007 p 49) with flexibility in
modifying target strategy and proactive operation in order to cope with the evolved changing
environment The research study pointed out the importance of business strategy of SMEs
that supported the SMErsquos sustainability and competitive advantage (Chen and Hambrick 1995
Hitt et al 1991 Storey 1994)
In addition entrepreneurial had direct effect toward innovation with aligned with the
concept of Schumpeter (1994) who quoted the importance of entrepreneurs in innovation
development He pointed out that innovation would assist the economic growth Hence
entrepreneurs had important role in developing innovation and it would in turn assisted
entrepreneurs in achieving business success
Lastly entrepreneurial had indirect effect toward competitive advantage through
marketing capabilities innovation and business strategy which conformed with research work
of Jia ndash Sheng Lee Chia-Jung Hsich (2010) It revealed that entrepreneurial had direct effect
toward marketing capabilities ability in creating innovation sustainable competitive
advantage and entrepreneurial had indirect effect toward sustainable competitive advantage
through marketing capabilities and innovation capability Shahid Qureshi (2010) had also
concluded that entrepreneurial business strategy marketing capability had effect toward
the success of SMEs
10 Research Recommendations
1 The study of entrepreneurial by applying different sampling groups with larger sampling
size The study should cover the large enterprises for comparison on the perception of
entrepreneurial of SMEs against the large enterprises
2 Government sector ought to fully aware and support the knowledge learning on
innovation development on continuous basis for entrepreneurs to applying such knowledge in
supporting competitive advantage and leading the economic development of the country as a
whole
11 References
Ana M M amp Jos C (2008) Entrepreneurial Orientation and Growth of SMEs A Causal
Model Entrepreneurship Theory
Afzal S (2010) Marketing capability strategy and business performance in emerging markets
of Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities 7(2)
Barney J ( 1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage Journal of
Management 17(1) 99ndash120
383
Bougheas S Mizen P amp Yalcin C (2004) Access to External Finance Theory and Evidence
on the Impact of Firm-Specific Characteristic Research Department Working Paper 4 6
Bannock G ( 2005) Economics and Management of Small Business An International
Perspective London Routledge
Boone L E amp Kurtz D L (2010) Contemporary Business (13th ed) New York John Wiley amp Sons
Bygrave W D amp Hofer C W ( 1991) Theorizing about Entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice 16(2) 13
Casey D (1996) Managing Learning Organizations Buckingham Open University Press
Covin J G amp Slevin D P (1991) A Conceptual Model of Entrepreneurship as Firm Behavior
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 16 7-25
Chen M amp Hambrick D C (1995) Speed stealth and selective attach How small firms
differ from large firms in competitive behavior Academy of Management Journal 38(2)
453ndash482
Cronbach L J (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests Psychometrika 16 297-
334
Department of Business Development (2011) Department of Business Development Annual
Report 2011 Bangkok Department of Business Development Ministry of Commerce
Drucker E P (1985) The discipline of innovation Harvard Business Review 67-72
Damanpour F Szabat K A amp Evan W M ( 1989) The relationship between types of
innovation and organizational performance Journal of Management Studies 26(6) 587-
601
Davies W (2000) Derstanding Strategy Strategy and Leadership 28(5) 25-30
Gibbons A ( 1997) Innovation and the Developing System of Knowledge Production University of
Sussex
Guenzi P amp Troilo G (2006) Developing marketing capabilities for customer value creation
through marketing-sales integration Industrial Marketing Management 35(8) 974-988
Hall Peter ( 1994) Innovation Economics amp Evolution Theoretical Perspectives on Changing
Technology in Economic Systems New York Harvester Wheat sheaf
Hitt M A Hoskisson R E amp Harrison J S (1991) Strategic competitiveness in the 1990s
Challenges and opportunities for US executives Academy of Management Executive 5(2) 7ndash
22
384
Han JK Kim N Srivastava R ( 1998) Market orientation and organizational
performanceIs innovation a missing link Journal of Marketing 62 (4) 30-45
Johne A ( 1999) Successful market innovation European Journal of Innovation Management 2
6-11
Jiamjittrong V (2010) Effect of Entrepreneurial toward Business Performance of SMEs Public
Administration Doctorate Degree National Institute of Development Administration
Jia-Sheng Lee amp Chia-Jung Hsieh ( 2 0 1 0 ) A Research in Relating Entrepreneurship
Marketing Capability Innovative Capability and Sustained Competitive Advantage EABR
amp ETLC Conference Proceedings Dublin Ireland
Lertpachin C ( 2 011) Strategy for Modern Entrepreneurs amidst ASEAN Economics
Community Environment Social Sciences Journal Faculty of Social Sciences Chiangrai
Rajabhat University
Liu S X Luo amp Y Shi (2002) Integrating Customer Orientation Corporate
Entrepreneurship and Learning Orientation in Organization-in-Transition an Empirical
Study Internal Journal of Research in Marketing 19 367-382
Mintzberg H ( 1996) Five Ps for Strategy In ProcessndashConcepts Contexts and Cases
Mintzberg H and Quinn Jn Eds Upper Saddle River New Jersey Prentice Hall
Michael J S amp Kate S (2009) The female economy Harvard business review September
2009
Nelson Jorge Ribeiro Duarte (2010) The Role of Firms and Entrepreneurship on Local
Development in the egion of Vale Do Sousa Francisco Joseacute Lopes de Sousa Diniz
Neil A Morgan D W Vorhies amp Charlotte H M (2009) Market Orientation Marketing
Capabilities and Firm Performance Strategic Management Journal 30 909ndash920
Nelson J amp Ribeiro D (2010) The Role of Firms and Entrepreneurship on Local Development
in the egion of Vale Do Sousa Francisco Joseacute Lopes de Sousa Diniz
Office of Small and Medium Enterprises (2010) Small and Medium Enterprises Status Report
2010 and Trend 2011 Bangkok Office of Small and Medium Enterprises
Porter M E (1980) Competitive Strategy New York The Free Press
Porter ME (1996) What is strategy Harvard Business Review 74(6) 61-78
Porter M E (1985) Competitive Strategy Techniques for Analyzing Industries and
Competitors New York The Free Press
385
Porter M E (1998) Competitive Strategy Techniques for Analyzing Industries and
Competitors (1st ed) Illinois The Free Press
Porter M E (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations New York The Free Press
Robert W Thomas J P amp Julien R P ( 1980) Structure is not organization Business
Horizons 23(3) 14-26
Ringle C M Wende S amp Will A ( 2004) Smart PLS 20 ( M3) Germany University of
Hambury
Saengtienchom C (2012) SMEs and Country Economy [Online] Available
wwwrtcacthwww_km020220024_2-2553pdf [2555 March 10]
Schumpeter J (1994) A History of Economic Analysis London Routledge
Schumpeter J A ( 1950) Capitalism socialism and democracy (3rd ed) New York Harper and
Row
Shahid Q (2011) Antecedents and outcomes of entrepreneurial firms marketing capabilities
An empirical investigation of small technology based firm Journal of Strategic Innovation
and Sustainability 6(4)
Slater S F amp Narver J C (1994) Does Competitive Environment Moderate the Market
Orientation-Performance Relationship Journal of Marketing 58 46-55
Saito K A amp Villanueva D P (1981) Transaction costs of credit to the small-scale sector in
philippines Economic Development and Cultural Change 29(3) 631-640
Sertvanich K (2005) Must Correct SMEs Filature Bangkok C-Education
Tsai M T amp Shih C M (2004) The impact of marketing knowledge among managers on
marketing capabilities and business performance International Journal of Management
21(4) 524-530
Thompson A A amp Strickland A J (2003) Strategic Management Concepts and Case (11th ed)
New York McGraw-Hill
Urabe K Child J amp Kagono T ( 1 9 8 8 ) Innovation and Management International
Comparisons The concept of fit in contingency theory Berlin Walter de Gruyter amp Co
Vorhies D W (1998) An investigation of the factors leading to the development of marketing
capabilities and organizational effectiveness Journal of Strategic Marketing 6(1) 3-23
Weerawardena J (2003) The role of marketing capability in innovation ndash Based competitive
strategy Journal of Strategy Marketing 11 15-35
386
Weerawardena J O Cass A amp Julian C (2002) lsquoDoes industry matter Examining the role
of industry structure in innovation-based competitive marketing strategy Journal of
Business Research 59 37-45
Wingwon B ( 2007) SMEs Business Management Department of General Management
Faculty of Management Science Lampang Rajabhat University
Wingwon B (2011) Antecedents and Outcomes of Business Strategy for SMEs
Entrepreneurs in Northern Region Faculty of Management Science Lampang Rajabhat
University
Wingwon B (2012) Effects of entrepreneurship organization capability strategic decision
making and innovation toward the competitive advantage of SMEs enterprises Journal of
Management and Sustainability 2(1) 78-93
Zimmerer T W amp Scarborough N M (2002) Essentials of Entrepreneurship and Small
Business Management (4thed) New Jersey Prentice-Hall
382
Furthermore entrepreneurial had direct effect toward business strategy which confirmed
with the study of Wingwon (2007) which summarized that entrepreneurship risk
management inspiration and determination of staff and relevant stakeholders It included
the business capacity in operating future business (Wingwon 2007 p 49) with flexibility in
modifying target strategy and proactive operation in order to cope with the evolved changing
environment The research study pointed out the importance of business strategy of SMEs
that supported the SMErsquos sustainability and competitive advantage (Chen and Hambrick 1995
Hitt et al 1991 Storey 1994)
In addition entrepreneurial had direct effect toward innovation with aligned with the
concept of Schumpeter (1994) who quoted the importance of entrepreneurs in innovation
development He pointed out that innovation would assist the economic growth Hence
entrepreneurs had important role in developing innovation and it would in turn assisted
entrepreneurs in achieving business success
Lastly entrepreneurial had indirect effect toward competitive advantage through
marketing capabilities innovation and business strategy which conformed with research work
of Jia ndash Sheng Lee Chia-Jung Hsich (2010) It revealed that entrepreneurial had direct effect
toward marketing capabilities ability in creating innovation sustainable competitive
advantage and entrepreneurial had indirect effect toward sustainable competitive advantage
through marketing capabilities and innovation capability Shahid Qureshi (2010) had also
concluded that entrepreneurial business strategy marketing capability had effect toward
the success of SMEs
10 Research Recommendations
1 The study of entrepreneurial by applying different sampling groups with larger sampling
size The study should cover the large enterprises for comparison on the perception of
entrepreneurial of SMEs against the large enterprises
2 Government sector ought to fully aware and support the knowledge learning on
innovation development on continuous basis for entrepreneurs to applying such knowledge in
supporting competitive advantage and leading the economic development of the country as a
whole
11 References
Ana M M amp Jos C (2008) Entrepreneurial Orientation and Growth of SMEs A Causal
Model Entrepreneurship Theory
Afzal S (2010) Marketing capability strategy and business performance in emerging markets
of Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities 7(2)
Barney J ( 1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage Journal of
Management 17(1) 99ndash120
383
Bougheas S Mizen P amp Yalcin C (2004) Access to External Finance Theory and Evidence
on the Impact of Firm-Specific Characteristic Research Department Working Paper 4 6
Bannock G ( 2005) Economics and Management of Small Business An International
Perspective London Routledge
Boone L E amp Kurtz D L (2010) Contemporary Business (13th ed) New York John Wiley amp Sons
Bygrave W D amp Hofer C W ( 1991) Theorizing about Entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice 16(2) 13
Casey D (1996) Managing Learning Organizations Buckingham Open University Press
Covin J G amp Slevin D P (1991) A Conceptual Model of Entrepreneurship as Firm Behavior
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 16 7-25
Chen M amp Hambrick D C (1995) Speed stealth and selective attach How small firms
differ from large firms in competitive behavior Academy of Management Journal 38(2)
453ndash482
Cronbach L J (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests Psychometrika 16 297-
334
Department of Business Development (2011) Department of Business Development Annual
Report 2011 Bangkok Department of Business Development Ministry of Commerce
Drucker E P (1985) The discipline of innovation Harvard Business Review 67-72
Damanpour F Szabat K A amp Evan W M ( 1989) The relationship between types of
innovation and organizational performance Journal of Management Studies 26(6) 587-
601
Davies W (2000) Derstanding Strategy Strategy and Leadership 28(5) 25-30
Gibbons A ( 1997) Innovation and the Developing System of Knowledge Production University of
Sussex
Guenzi P amp Troilo G (2006) Developing marketing capabilities for customer value creation
through marketing-sales integration Industrial Marketing Management 35(8) 974-988
Hall Peter ( 1994) Innovation Economics amp Evolution Theoretical Perspectives on Changing
Technology in Economic Systems New York Harvester Wheat sheaf
Hitt M A Hoskisson R E amp Harrison J S (1991) Strategic competitiveness in the 1990s
Challenges and opportunities for US executives Academy of Management Executive 5(2) 7ndash
22
384
Han JK Kim N Srivastava R ( 1998) Market orientation and organizational
performanceIs innovation a missing link Journal of Marketing 62 (4) 30-45
Johne A ( 1999) Successful market innovation European Journal of Innovation Management 2
6-11
Jiamjittrong V (2010) Effect of Entrepreneurial toward Business Performance of SMEs Public
Administration Doctorate Degree National Institute of Development Administration
Jia-Sheng Lee amp Chia-Jung Hsieh ( 2 0 1 0 ) A Research in Relating Entrepreneurship
Marketing Capability Innovative Capability and Sustained Competitive Advantage EABR
amp ETLC Conference Proceedings Dublin Ireland
Lertpachin C ( 2 011) Strategy for Modern Entrepreneurs amidst ASEAN Economics
Community Environment Social Sciences Journal Faculty of Social Sciences Chiangrai
Rajabhat University
Liu S X Luo amp Y Shi (2002) Integrating Customer Orientation Corporate
Entrepreneurship and Learning Orientation in Organization-in-Transition an Empirical
Study Internal Journal of Research in Marketing 19 367-382
Mintzberg H ( 1996) Five Ps for Strategy In ProcessndashConcepts Contexts and Cases
Mintzberg H and Quinn Jn Eds Upper Saddle River New Jersey Prentice Hall
Michael J S amp Kate S (2009) The female economy Harvard business review September
2009
Nelson Jorge Ribeiro Duarte (2010) The Role of Firms and Entrepreneurship on Local
Development in the egion of Vale Do Sousa Francisco Joseacute Lopes de Sousa Diniz
Neil A Morgan D W Vorhies amp Charlotte H M (2009) Market Orientation Marketing
Capabilities and Firm Performance Strategic Management Journal 30 909ndash920
Nelson J amp Ribeiro D (2010) The Role of Firms and Entrepreneurship on Local Development
in the egion of Vale Do Sousa Francisco Joseacute Lopes de Sousa Diniz
Office of Small and Medium Enterprises (2010) Small and Medium Enterprises Status Report
2010 and Trend 2011 Bangkok Office of Small and Medium Enterprises
Porter M E (1980) Competitive Strategy New York The Free Press
Porter ME (1996) What is strategy Harvard Business Review 74(6) 61-78
Porter M E (1985) Competitive Strategy Techniques for Analyzing Industries and
Competitors New York The Free Press
385
Porter M E (1998) Competitive Strategy Techniques for Analyzing Industries and
Competitors (1st ed) Illinois The Free Press
Porter M E (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations New York The Free Press
Robert W Thomas J P amp Julien R P ( 1980) Structure is not organization Business
Horizons 23(3) 14-26
Ringle C M Wende S amp Will A ( 2004) Smart PLS 20 ( M3) Germany University of
Hambury
Saengtienchom C (2012) SMEs and Country Economy [Online] Available
wwwrtcacthwww_km020220024_2-2553pdf [2555 March 10]
Schumpeter J (1994) A History of Economic Analysis London Routledge
Schumpeter J A ( 1950) Capitalism socialism and democracy (3rd ed) New York Harper and
Row
Shahid Q (2011) Antecedents and outcomes of entrepreneurial firms marketing capabilities
An empirical investigation of small technology based firm Journal of Strategic Innovation
and Sustainability 6(4)
Slater S F amp Narver J C (1994) Does Competitive Environment Moderate the Market
Orientation-Performance Relationship Journal of Marketing 58 46-55
Saito K A amp Villanueva D P (1981) Transaction costs of credit to the small-scale sector in
philippines Economic Development and Cultural Change 29(3) 631-640
Sertvanich K (2005) Must Correct SMEs Filature Bangkok C-Education
Tsai M T amp Shih C M (2004) The impact of marketing knowledge among managers on
marketing capabilities and business performance International Journal of Management
21(4) 524-530
Thompson A A amp Strickland A J (2003) Strategic Management Concepts and Case (11th ed)
New York McGraw-Hill
Urabe K Child J amp Kagono T ( 1 9 8 8 ) Innovation and Management International
Comparisons The concept of fit in contingency theory Berlin Walter de Gruyter amp Co
Vorhies D W (1998) An investigation of the factors leading to the development of marketing
capabilities and organizational effectiveness Journal of Strategic Marketing 6(1) 3-23
Weerawardena J (2003) The role of marketing capability in innovation ndash Based competitive
strategy Journal of Strategy Marketing 11 15-35
386
Weerawardena J O Cass A amp Julian C (2002) lsquoDoes industry matter Examining the role
of industry structure in innovation-based competitive marketing strategy Journal of
Business Research 59 37-45
Wingwon B ( 2007) SMEs Business Management Department of General Management
Faculty of Management Science Lampang Rajabhat University
Wingwon B (2011) Antecedents and Outcomes of Business Strategy for SMEs
Entrepreneurs in Northern Region Faculty of Management Science Lampang Rajabhat
University
Wingwon B (2012) Effects of entrepreneurship organization capability strategic decision
making and innovation toward the competitive advantage of SMEs enterprises Journal of
Management and Sustainability 2(1) 78-93
Zimmerer T W amp Scarborough N M (2002) Essentials of Entrepreneurship and Small
Business Management (4thed) New Jersey Prentice-Hall
383
Bougheas S Mizen P amp Yalcin C (2004) Access to External Finance Theory and Evidence
on the Impact of Firm-Specific Characteristic Research Department Working Paper 4 6
Bannock G ( 2005) Economics and Management of Small Business An International
Perspective London Routledge
Boone L E amp Kurtz D L (2010) Contemporary Business (13th ed) New York John Wiley amp Sons
Bygrave W D amp Hofer C W ( 1991) Theorizing about Entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice 16(2) 13
Casey D (1996) Managing Learning Organizations Buckingham Open University Press
Covin J G amp Slevin D P (1991) A Conceptual Model of Entrepreneurship as Firm Behavior
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 16 7-25
Chen M amp Hambrick D C (1995) Speed stealth and selective attach How small firms
differ from large firms in competitive behavior Academy of Management Journal 38(2)
453ndash482
Cronbach L J (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests Psychometrika 16 297-
334
Department of Business Development (2011) Department of Business Development Annual
Report 2011 Bangkok Department of Business Development Ministry of Commerce
Drucker E P (1985) The discipline of innovation Harvard Business Review 67-72
Damanpour F Szabat K A amp Evan W M ( 1989) The relationship between types of
innovation and organizational performance Journal of Management Studies 26(6) 587-
601
Davies W (2000) Derstanding Strategy Strategy and Leadership 28(5) 25-30
Gibbons A ( 1997) Innovation and the Developing System of Knowledge Production University of
Sussex
Guenzi P amp Troilo G (2006) Developing marketing capabilities for customer value creation
through marketing-sales integration Industrial Marketing Management 35(8) 974-988
Hall Peter ( 1994) Innovation Economics amp Evolution Theoretical Perspectives on Changing
Technology in Economic Systems New York Harvester Wheat sheaf
Hitt M A Hoskisson R E amp Harrison J S (1991) Strategic competitiveness in the 1990s
Challenges and opportunities for US executives Academy of Management Executive 5(2) 7ndash
22
384
Han JK Kim N Srivastava R ( 1998) Market orientation and organizational
performanceIs innovation a missing link Journal of Marketing 62 (4) 30-45
Johne A ( 1999) Successful market innovation European Journal of Innovation Management 2
6-11
Jiamjittrong V (2010) Effect of Entrepreneurial toward Business Performance of SMEs Public
Administration Doctorate Degree National Institute of Development Administration
Jia-Sheng Lee amp Chia-Jung Hsieh ( 2 0 1 0 ) A Research in Relating Entrepreneurship
Marketing Capability Innovative Capability and Sustained Competitive Advantage EABR
amp ETLC Conference Proceedings Dublin Ireland
Lertpachin C ( 2 011) Strategy for Modern Entrepreneurs amidst ASEAN Economics
Community Environment Social Sciences Journal Faculty of Social Sciences Chiangrai
Rajabhat University
Liu S X Luo amp Y Shi (2002) Integrating Customer Orientation Corporate
Entrepreneurship and Learning Orientation in Organization-in-Transition an Empirical
Study Internal Journal of Research in Marketing 19 367-382
Mintzberg H ( 1996) Five Ps for Strategy In ProcessndashConcepts Contexts and Cases
Mintzberg H and Quinn Jn Eds Upper Saddle River New Jersey Prentice Hall
Michael J S amp Kate S (2009) The female economy Harvard business review September
2009
Nelson Jorge Ribeiro Duarte (2010) The Role of Firms and Entrepreneurship on Local
Development in the egion of Vale Do Sousa Francisco Joseacute Lopes de Sousa Diniz
Neil A Morgan D W Vorhies amp Charlotte H M (2009) Market Orientation Marketing
Capabilities and Firm Performance Strategic Management Journal 30 909ndash920
Nelson J amp Ribeiro D (2010) The Role of Firms and Entrepreneurship on Local Development
in the egion of Vale Do Sousa Francisco Joseacute Lopes de Sousa Diniz
Office of Small and Medium Enterprises (2010) Small and Medium Enterprises Status Report
2010 and Trend 2011 Bangkok Office of Small and Medium Enterprises
Porter M E (1980) Competitive Strategy New York The Free Press
Porter ME (1996) What is strategy Harvard Business Review 74(6) 61-78
Porter M E (1985) Competitive Strategy Techniques for Analyzing Industries and
Competitors New York The Free Press
385
Porter M E (1998) Competitive Strategy Techniques for Analyzing Industries and
Competitors (1st ed) Illinois The Free Press
Porter M E (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations New York The Free Press
Robert W Thomas J P amp Julien R P ( 1980) Structure is not organization Business
Horizons 23(3) 14-26
Ringle C M Wende S amp Will A ( 2004) Smart PLS 20 ( M3) Germany University of
Hambury
Saengtienchom C (2012) SMEs and Country Economy [Online] Available
wwwrtcacthwww_km020220024_2-2553pdf [2555 March 10]
Schumpeter J (1994) A History of Economic Analysis London Routledge
Schumpeter J A ( 1950) Capitalism socialism and democracy (3rd ed) New York Harper and
Row
Shahid Q (2011) Antecedents and outcomes of entrepreneurial firms marketing capabilities
An empirical investigation of small technology based firm Journal of Strategic Innovation
and Sustainability 6(4)
Slater S F amp Narver J C (1994) Does Competitive Environment Moderate the Market
Orientation-Performance Relationship Journal of Marketing 58 46-55
Saito K A amp Villanueva D P (1981) Transaction costs of credit to the small-scale sector in
philippines Economic Development and Cultural Change 29(3) 631-640
Sertvanich K (2005) Must Correct SMEs Filature Bangkok C-Education
Tsai M T amp Shih C M (2004) The impact of marketing knowledge among managers on
marketing capabilities and business performance International Journal of Management
21(4) 524-530
Thompson A A amp Strickland A J (2003) Strategic Management Concepts and Case (11th ed)
New York McGraw-Hill
Urabe K Child J amp Kagono T ( 1 9 8 8 ) Innovation and Management International
Comparisons The concept of fit in contingency theory Berlin Walter de Gruyter amp Co
Vorhies D W (1998) An investigation of the factors leading to the development of marketing
capabilities and organizational effectiveness Journal of Strategic Marketing 6(1) 3-23
Weerawardena J (2003) The role of marketing capability in innovation ndash Based competitive
strategy Journal of Strategy Marketing 11 15-35
386
Weerawardena J O Cass A amp Julian C (2002) lsquoDoes industry matter Examining the role
of industry structure in innovation-based competitive marketing strategy Journal of
Business Research 59 37-45
Wingwon B ( 2007) SMEs Business Management Department of General Management
Faculty of Management Science Lampang Rajabhat University
Wingwon B (2011) Antecedents and Outcomes of Business Strategy for SMEs
Entrepreneurs in Northern Region Faculty of Management Science Lampang Rajabhat
University
Wingwon B (2012) Effects of entrepreneurship organization capability strategic decision
making and innovation toward the competitive advantage of SMEs enterprises Journal of
Management and Sustainability 2(1) 78-93
Zimmerer T W amp Scarborough N M (2002) Essentials of Entrepreneurship and Small
Business Management (4thed) New Jersey Prentice-Hall
384
Han JK Kim N Srivastava R ( 1998) Market orientation and organizational
performanceIs innovation a missing link Journal of Marketing 62 (4) 30-45
Johne A ( 1999) Successful market innovation European Journal of Innovation Management 2
6-11
Jiamjittrong V (2010) Effect of Entrepreneurial toward Business Performance of SMEs Public
Administration Doctorate Degree National Institute of Development Administration
Jia-Sheng Lee amp Chia-Jung Hsieh ( 2 0 1 0 ) A Research in Relating Entrepreneurship
Marketing Capability Innovative Capability and Sustained Competitive Advantage EABR
amp ETLC Conference Proceedings Dublin Ireland
Lertpachin C ( 2 011) Strategy for Modern Entrepreneurs amidst ASEAN Economics
Community Environment Social Sciences Journal Faculty of Social Sciences Chiangrai
Rajabhat University
Liu S X Luo amp Y Shi (2002) Integrating Customer Orientation Corporate
Entrepreneurship and Learning Orientation in Organization-in-Transition an Empirical
Study Internal Journal of Research in Marketing 19 367-382
Mintzberg H ( 1996) Five Ps for Strategy In ProcessndashConcepts Contexts and Cases
Mintzberg H and Quinn Jn Eds Upper Saddle River New Jersey Prentice Hall
Michael J S amp Kate S (2009) The female economy Harvard business review September
2009
Nelson Jorge Ribeiro Duarte (2010) The Role of Firms and Entrepreneurship on Local
Development in the egion of Vale Do Sousa Francisco Joseacute Lopes de Sousa Diniz
Neil A Morgan D W Vorhies amp Charlotte H M (2009) Market Orientation Marketing
Capabilities and Firm Performance Strategic Management Journal 30 909ndash920
Nelson J amp Ribeiro D (2010) The Role of Firms and Entrepreneurship on Local Development
in the egion of Vale Do Sousa Francisco Joseacute Lopes de Sousa Diniz
Office of Small and Medium Enterprises (2010) Small and Medium Enterprises Status Report
2010 and Trend 2011 Bangkok Office of Small and Medium Enterprises
Porter M E (1980) Competitive Strategy New York The Free Press
Porter ME (1996) What is strategy Harvard Business Review 74(6) 61-78
Porter M E (1985) Competitive Strategy Techniques for Analyzing Industries and
Competitors New York The Free Press
385
Porter M E (1998) Competitive Strategy Techniques for Analyzing Industries and
Competitors (1st ed) Illinois The Free Press
Porter M E (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations New York The Free Press
Robert W Thomas J P amp Julien R P ( 1980) Structure is not organization Business
Horizons 23(3) 14-26
Ringle C M Wende S amp Will A ( 2004) Smart PLS 20 ( M3) Germany University of
Hambury
Saengtienchom C (2012) SMEs and Country Economy [Online] Available
wwwrtcacthwww_km020220024_2-2553pdf [2555 March 10]
Schumpeter J (1994) A History of Economic Analysis London Routledge
Schumpeter J A ( 1950) Capitalism socialism and democracy (3rd ed) New York Harper and
Row
Shahid Q (2011) Antecedents and outcomes of entrepreneurial firms marketing capabilities
An empirical investigation of small technology based firm Journal of Strategic Innovation
and Sustainability 6(4)
Slater S F amp Narver J C (1994) Does Competitive Environment Moderate the Market
Orientation-Performance Relationship Journal of Marketing 58 46-55
Saito K A amp Villanueva D P (1981) Transaction costs of credit to the small-scale sector in
philippines Economic Development and Cultural Change 29(3) 631-640
Sertvanich K (2005) Must Correct SMEs Filature Bangkok C-Education
Tsai M T amp Shih C M (2004) The impact of marketing knowledge among managers on
marketing capabilities and business performance International Journal of Management
21(4) 524-530
Thompson A A amp Strickland A J (2003) Strategic Management Concepts and Case (11th ed)
New York McGraw-Hill
Urabe K Child J amp Kagono T ( 1 9 8 8 ) Innovation and Management International
Comparisons The concept of fit in contingency theory Berlin Walter de Gruyter amp Co
Vorhies D W (1998) An investigation of the factors leading to the development of marketing
capabilities and organizational effectiveness Journal of Strategic Marketing 6(1) 3-23
Weerawardena J (2003) The role of marketing capability in innovation ndash Based competitive
strategy Journal of Strategy Marketing 11 15-35
386
Weerawardena J O Cass A amp Julian C (2002) lsquoDoes industry matter Examining the role
of industry structure in innovation-based competitive marketing strategy Journal of
Business Research 59 37-45
Wingwon B ( 2007) SMEs Business Management Department of General Management
Faculty of Management Science Lampang Rajabhat University
Wingwon B (2011) Antecedents and Outcomes of Business Strategy for SMEs
Entrepreneurs in Northern Region Faculty of Management Science Lampang Rajabhat
University
Wingwon B (2012) Effects of entrepreneurship organization capability strategic decision
making and innovation toward the competitive advantage of SMEs enterprises Journal of
Management and Sustainability 2(1) 78-93
Zimmerer T W amp Scarborough N M (2002) Essentials of Entrepreneurship and Small
Business Management (4thed) New Jersey Prentice-Hall
385
Porter M E (1998) Competitive Strategy Techniques for Analyzing Industries and
Competitors (1st ed) Illinois The Free Press
Porter M E (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations New York The Free Press
Robert W Thomas J P amp Julien R P ( 1980) Structure is not organization Business
Horizons 23(3) 14-26
Ringle C M Wende S amp Will A ( 2004) Smart PLS 20 ( M3) Germany University of
Hambury
Saengtienchom C (2012) SMEs and Country Economy [Online] Available
wwwrtcacthwww_km020220024_2-2553pdf [2555 March 10]
Schumpeter J (1994) A History of Economic Analysis London Routledge
Schumpeter J A ( 1950) Capitalism socialism and democracy (3rd ed) New York Harper and
Row
Shahid Q (2011) Antecedents and outcomes of entrepreneurial firms marketing capabilities
An empirical investigation of small technology based firm Journal of Strategic Innovation
and Sustainability 6(4)
Slater S F amp Narver J C (1994) Does Competitive Environment Moderate the Market
Orientation-Performance Relationship Journal of Marketing 58 46-55
Saito K A amp Villanueva D P (1981) Transaction costs of credit to the small-scale sector in
philippines Economic Development and Cultural Change 29(3) 631-640
Sertvanich K (2005) Must Correct SMEs Filature Bangkok C-Education
Tsai M T amp Shih C M (2004) The impact of marketing knowledge among managers on
marketing capabilities and business performance International Journal of Management
21(4) 524-530
Thompson A A amp Strickland A J (2003) Strategic Management Concepts and Case (11th ed)
New York McGraw-Hill
Urabe K Child J amp Kagono T ( 1 9 8 8 ) Innovation and Management International
Comparisons The concept of fit in contingency theory Berlin Walter de Gruyter amp Co
Vorhies D W (1998) An investigation of the factors leading to the development of marketing
capabilities and organizational effectiveness Journal of Strategic Marketing 6(1) 3-23
Weerawardena J (2003) The role of marketing capability in innovation ndash Based competitive
strategy Journal of Strategy Marketing 11 15-35
386
Weerawardena J O Cass A amp Julian C (2002) lsquoDoes industry matter Examining the role
of industry structure in innovation-based competitive marketing strategy Journal of
Business Research 59 37-45
Wingwon B ( 2007) SMEs Business Management Department of General Management
Faculty of Management Science Lampang Rajabhat University
Wingwon B (2011) Antecedents and Outcomes of Business Strategy for SMEs
Entrepreneurs in Northern Region Faculty of Management Science Lampang Rajabhat
University
Wingwon B (2012) Effects of entrepreneurship organization capability strategic decision
making and innovation toward the competitive advantage of SMEs enterprises Journal of
Management and Sustainability 2(1) 78-93
Zimmerer T W amp Scarborough N M (2002) Essentials of Entrepreneurship and Small
Business Management (4thed) New Jersey Prentice-Hall
386
Weerawardena J O Cass A amp Julian C (2002) lsquoDoes industry matter Examining the role
of industry structure in innovation-based competitive marketing strategy Journal of
Business Research 59 37-45
Wingwon B ( 2007) SMEs Business Management Department of General Management
Faculty of Management Science Lampang Rajabhat University
Wingwon B (2011) Antecedents and Outcomes of Business Strategy for SMEs
Entrepreneurs in Northern Region Faculty of Management Science Lampang Rajabhat
University
Wingwon B (2012) Effects of entrepreneurship organization capability strategic decision
making and innovation toward the competitive advantage of SMEs enterprises Journal of
Management and Sustainability 2(1) 78-93
Zimmerer T W amp Scarborough N M (2002) Essentials of Entrepreneurship and Small
Business Management (4thed) New Jersey Prentice-Hall