Primera intervención grupo experimental y control

An important issue of the research was to determine why some regional ports seem to discover more opportunities than other. The results in Table 5.6 suggest that the methods they use are a very important component of the process of identifying market opportunities.

Social networks ranked first (4.21) and are used 'often' by 43 percent of respondents and 'to a great extent' by 41 percent. The results validate the earlier discussion which pointed out that social networks provide an extended platform on which information on opportunities, problems, market trends, customers needs and expectations and

technological possibilities is circulated and exchanged and that social networks increase the possibility that a port becomes a recipient of an accidental opportunity.

Table 5.6 Methods used to identify market opportunities

Percentage of respondents with particular response*

Mean

Methods Rank 1 2 3 4 5 Response S.D. Chance†† _{10 7.14 52.38 30.95 9.53 ― 2.43 0.77}

Formal processes 7 7.14 9.52 38.10 42.86 2.38 3.24 0.93 Identification of trends 4 ― 9.53 28.57 54.76 7.14 3.60 0.77 Identification of shipper needs† _{2 ― 2.38 16.67 42.86 38.09 4.17 0.79}

Environmental scanning 9 7.14 30.95 30.95 19.06 11.90 2.98 1.14 Value chain analysis 6 4.76 23.81 19.04 35.71 16.67 3.36 1.17 Intuition 8 2.38 19.05 50.00 21.43 7.14 3.12 0.89 Strategic planning 3 ― 7.14 19.05 57.14 16.67 3.83 0.79 Marketing research 5 2.38 11.90 33.34 35.71 16.67 3.52 0.99 Social networks† _{1 ― 2.38 14.28 42.86 40.48 4.21 0.78}

*1: Not at all; 2: Seldom; 3: To some extent; 4: Often; 5: To a great extent.

†_{Pairwise comparisons show the means of 'Social networks'' and 'Identification of shipper needs' to be statistically} different (more significant) from the other eight variables at the 5% level of significance.

††_{Pairwise comparisons show the mean of 'Chance' to be statistically different (less significant) from the other nine} variables at the 5% level of significance.

The identification of shipper needs ranked second and was, with social networks, the most significant method in statistical terms. Once again the results accord with the proposition that a port can grow if and only if it can deliver value to the shippers and its key customers and by doing so capture value for itself. To deliver value it is critical that port managers understand shipper needs.

Chance is 'seldom' (2.43) used as a method to identify opportunities. Statistically it was found to be the least significant. This is in agreement with the literature which while recognizing that chance is a factor, stresses the need for more systematic and predictable approaches. Surprisingly, however, environmental scanning scored 2.98, with 69 percent of respondents stating that they used it as a method 'to some extent', 'seldom' or 'not at all'. The literature has suggested that there is a strong positive relationship between environmental scanning and opportunity recognition (Smeltzer et al. 1988; Pearce et al. 1982; Lenz and Engledow 1986). But like small organisations, regional ports may lack resources to conduct a systematic search of opportunities or may still hold an unrealistic view of entrepreneurship as an 'opportunistic' way of doing

business. To lend support to this view, formal processes and value chain analysis are only used 'to some extent' (3.24 and 3.36 respectively).

Often, some regional ports discover more opportunities than others not only because they use sophisticated methods but also because they search the environment more broadly and intensely. Table 5.7 shows the scope and intensity of search for market opportunities.

Table 5.7 Scope and intensity of search for market opportunities

Percentage of respondents with particular response*

Mean

Markets for opportunities Rank 1 2 3 4 5 Response S.D. Hinterland† _{1 ― 16.67 19.05 19.05 45.23 3.93 1.16}

Intra-State 2 4.76 21.43 26.19 33.33 14.29 3.31 1.12 Inter-States 5 7.15 21.43 40.48 28.57 2.38 2.98 0.95 Overseas Markets 3 4.76 26.19 16.67 40.48 11.90 3.29 1.32 Adjacent Metropolitan Area 4 9.53 23.81 23.82 33.33 9.52 3.10 1.17

*1: Not at all; 2: Seldom; 3: To some extent; 4: Often; 5: To a great extent.

†_{Pairwise comparisons show the mean of Hinterland'' to be statistically different (more significant) from the other four} variables at the 5% level of significance.

Most respondents (45 percent) search the hinterland rather than other markets. Although the 'hinterland' is still perceived as a 'safe haven of captive opportunities', new evidence suggests that the hinterland is no longer a relevant notion to define the region in which a port has competitive advantage. Certainly, improvements in transport networks mean that diverse and widespread markets can be accessed easily by competitors.

An interesting point is that the respondents ranked overseas markets as third and ahead of inter-state markets. This suggests that they are aware of the fact that competition is taking place at a global scale and that to be part of supply chains which span the globe they need to demonstrate the ability to compete not only in domestic but also in international markets. In general, the focus of competition for opportunities is on the 'hinterland', overseas markets and within the state in which the regional port is located. To some extent the search is extended to the adjacent metropolitan area, but as the results suggest the intensity of search is not significant because the competition with capital city ports is likely to be intense. Fewer searches are conducted in other states

where other regional ports and capital city ports may have established adequate infrastructure and relationships.

Table 5.8 shows that the propensity to search for market opportunities is primarily driven by a growth motive (4.24) and the existence of a proactive management (4.05) both of which are positively associated with the market orientation of a port (3.86). More than 57 percent of respondents agree that attempts to position themselves in the marketplace force them to search the immediate environment for market opportunities. No less important is the attempt to make themselves 'visible'. Visibility is associated with reputation and the perception of a good image.

Table 5.8 Propensity to search for market opportunities

Percentage of respondents with particular response*

Key factors in the search for Mean

market opportunities Rank 1 2 3 4 5 Response S.D.

Factor endowments 9 4.76 21.43 38.10 30.95 4.76 3.10 0.96 Competitive pressure†† _{10 2.38 28.57 38.10 30.95 ― 2.98 0.84} Proactive management 2 ― 2.38 21.43 28.57 2.38 4.05 0.79 Growth motive† _{1 ― ― 7.14 61.91 30.95 4.24 0.58} Visibility 5 14.29 28.57 38.09 19.05 3.62 0.96 Risk tolerance 6 ― 16.67 30.95 45.24 7.14 3.43 0.86 Market orientation 3 ― 4.76 26.19 47.62 21.43 3.86 0.81 Established search procedures 8 2.38 21.43 38.10 28.57 9.52 3.21 0.98 Developed social networks 7 11.91 45.24 30.95 11.90 3.43 0.86 Competitive positioning 4 ― 9.52 33.33 42.86 14.29 3.62 0.85

*1: Strongly disagree; 2: Disagree; 3: Neither agree nor disagree; 4: Agree; 5: Strongly agree.

†_{Pairwise comparisons show the mean of 'Growth motive'' to be statistically different (more significant) from the other} nine variables at the 5% level of significance.

††_{Pairwise comparisons show the mean of 'Competitive pressure' to be statistically different (less significant) from the} other nine variables at the 5% level of significance.

Most respondents (69 percent) said that the search for market opportunities was not driven by competitive pressure or factor endowments they have or may control, but rather by growth motive and proactive management. The results also suggest that regional port managers are not sure if they take more risk than their capital city ports counterparts. Research has suggested that small business are more tolerant to risk and ambiguity (Schere 1982).

5.3.6 Relative importance of generic criteria used to evaluate market