FUENTE FORMAL: CODIGO CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO – ARTICULO 170 / CODIGO DE PROCEDIMIENTO CIVIL – ARTICULO

As specified in Section 4.4, a positivistic, descriptive approach was adopted to address the research objectives and provide data to answer the research questions discussed in Chapter One and test the hypotheses presented in Chapter Three. According to many scholars, such as Hussey and Hussey (1997) and Cavana et al.

88

(2001), issues such as (1) determining the population from which the sample is drawn; (2) developing the sampling frame; and (3) identifying key informants need to be addressed carefully so as to conduct robust research and yield reliable results. Specifically, the development of a sampling plan involves the selection of respondent profiles and research setting that matches the theoretical emphasis and overarching questions that the research aims to address (Cavana et al., 2001).

4.4.2.1.1 Sampling Frame

The sampling frame is the representation of the elements of the target population (Malhotra, 2006). Once the sampling frame is identified, the next critical step is to select an empirical setting that is suitable for the theoretical emphasis of the proposed study (Cavana et al., 2001). Considering the purpose of the study is to examine the extent to which product innovation capability influences the achievement of both customer value creation and firm value appropriation through brand equity, this study focuses on medium and large manufacturing firms. The decision to emphasise medium and large manufacturing firms is driven by the fact that these firms tend to have a clearer organisational structure that consists of separate functional areas such as marketing and R&D departments, as compared with micro or small firms.

The census list of all firms was obtained from the government agency that uses two criteria, namely, the number of employees and annual total revenue, to assess firm size. According to the criteria set out by the government agency, any firm that has a total number of employees between 51 and 100 is considered medium in size. Any firm that has a total number of employees of over 100 is considered large in size. The use of number of employees to determine firm size

89

is also consistent with prior studies (Salomo et al., 2008; Dul & Ceylan, 2014; Troilo et al., 2014). This census list was used as a sampling frame in this study.

This study adopted a systematic sampling technique. The sample was drawn by selecting a random starting point and then choosing every 5th element in succession from the list. For instance, if the random starting point was 5, the sample consisted of the elements 5, 10, 15, 20, and so on (Maholtra, 2006). This approach is frequently employed when a sampling frame is available (Johnson, 1999). Each time a sample firm was drawn, an initial contact by telephone was made to the senior executive or her/his delegate or representative in that firm, to ask for her/his agreement to participate in the study.

The senior executives were offered an explanation of the study, how their contact details were obtained, and the purpose of the call. Given the purpose of the study was to examine the role of product innovation capability in achieving both customer value creation and firm value appropriation through brand equity among medium and large firms, senior executives were asked specific questions related to screening criterion such as the firm’s total number of employees and whether the firms had launched a new product brand within the previous three years (from the data collection month). They were also informed that by agreeing to participate in the study, they would allow the researcher to contact the R&D manager, marketing manager, employees, and the customers of their firms. The random selection procedure was repeated starting from a different point in the list three times, upon which 390 firms agreed to participate in the study.

90 4.4.2.1.2 Participating Respondents

As shown in Figure 4.1 – Stage Two – identifying appropriate respondents who can provide the best responses to the focal constructs is critical once the appropriate sampling frame is determined. As elaborated by Stock et al. (2013), selecting appropriate informants is critical for the reliability and validity of the study given that an object’s ratings cannot be separated from its perceiver. Consequently, selecting the most knowledgeable informants with the most relevant expertise to respond to each construct is critical (Stock et al., 2013).

As shown in Figure 3.1 in Chapter Three, the theoretical model of this study comprises seven key constructs, namely: product innovation capability, brand orientation, market orientation, brand equity, transformational leadership, customer value creation, and firm value appropriation, all of which are best reported on by different respondents. Consequently, following a similar approach to Zhou et al. (2008), this study employed a multiple informant design using five key informants comprising senior executive, R&D manager, marketing manager, employees, and customers.

The senior executive is best placed to respond to items pertaining to firm value appropriation as they have full knowledge of the firm’s profitability, return on investment, and return on sales; the R&D or project manager is best placed to respond to items pertaining to a firm’s product innovation capability, and the marketing manager is best placed to respond to items pertaining to the firm’s marketing and branding activities. The literature also strongly supports the tenet that senior managers’ perceptions of the firm level variables is the most reliable and accurate one (e.g., Newbert, 2008; Morgan et al., 2009; Ngo & O’Cass, 2009). Further, employees are best placed to respond to items pertaining to

91

transformational leadership. This view is also widely supported in the literature (e.g., Liao & Chuang, 2007; Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009; Wang & Rode, 2010; Shannahan et al., 2013). Finally, customers are best placed to respond to items pertaining to customer value creation. The literature supports the view that customers are the final arbiter of value (Ulaga & Eggert, 2006; Priem, 2007; Chi & Gursoy, 2009; Claycomb & Frankwick, 2010; O’Cass & Sok, 2013), and as such their responses are reliable and representative of what value they have actually received from the firms. The use of the multiple informant approach in collecting data can help rule out a possible common method bias (e.g., Zhou et al., 2008; Morgan et al., 2009; Raub & Liao, 2012), and the use of managers, employees and customers as informants is common within the marketing and strategy fields (e.g., Liao & Chuang, 2007; Liao & Subramony, 2008; Zhou et al., 2008).

Consequently, five surveys were developed. The surveys were labelled as Survey A, B, C, D, and E with survey A being completed by a senior executive in the firm, B being the marketing manager in the firm, C being the R&D manager in the firm, D being the employees in the firm, and E being customers of the firm.