Table 2 Percent of firms in mailing list and responding firms by SIC code
and number of employees Percentage in
Percentage of mailing list
respondents SIC code
25 6.5
8.4 34
17.2 20.1
35 24.7
25.7 36
23.8 23.4
37 16.4
13.1 38
11.4 9.3
Number of employees 250–499
52.1 56.0
500–999 25.6
28.0 G1000
22.3 16.0
loadings at 0.60 or above. No further items were deleted. These factors explain 65.6 of the variance.
4.4. Reliability Reliabilities for the four dimensions of work sys-
Ž .
tem practices were obtained using Cronbach’s 1951 alpha. The reliabilities for standardization, formaliza-
tion, routinization, and integration are 0.79, 0.87, 0.85, and 0.91, respectively. Reliabilities of 0.80 or
Ž higher indicate that the scales performed well Nunn-
. ally, 1978 . No items were deleted at this stage.
Appendix C contains a copy of the final instruments. 4.5. Results for time-based manufacturing practices,
and competitiÕe capabilities Valid and reliable instruments for time-based
Ž .
manufacturing practices Koufteros et al., 1998 and Ž
. competitive capabilities Koufteros et al., 1997 were
adapted from prior research. Definitions, lists of Ž
items, scales for the items, and reliabilities Cron- .
bach, 1951 are provided for the time-based manu- facturing and the competitive capabilities instru-
ments in Appendices A and B, respectively. Factor analysis was performed on each set of instruments to
confirm construct validity. All items loaded on the designated factor, and all factor loadings were above
0.60. There were no cross-loadings above 0.40.
5. Results for the structural model
The model shown in Fig. 1 was investigated using LISREL. Fig. 2 displays the results of the analysis.
Overall, the model has a very good fit with GFI s
Table 3 Ž
. Work system practices large-scale study : dimension-level factor
analysis Step 1: Dimension-level factor analysis
Item Factor loading
Standardization KMO s 0.85 ST20
0.76 ST18
0.74 ST13
0.73 ST17
0.73 ST15
0.71 ST12
0.67 ST16
0.66 ST19
0.65 Integration KMO s 0.92
IN12 0.89
IN13 0.88
IN10 0.85
IN14 0.85
IN7 0.80
IN15 0.76
IN8 0.71
IN11 0.69
Item Factor 1
Factor 2 Formalization KMO s 0.83
FO12 0.82
FO16 0.81
FO13 0.79
FO15 0.77
a
FO17 0.85
FO18 0.84
FO14 0.58
FO20 0.42
0.56 F019
0.51 Routinization KMO s 0.80
RO10 0.85
RO1 0.79
RO14 0.75
RO13 0.74
RO15 0.68
a
RO12 0.91
RO11 0.89
a
Item dropped.
Table 4 Ž
. Work system practices large-scale study : construct-level factor analysis
Questionnaire item Step-1: Construct-level factor analysis Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy s 0.89;
factor loadings of 0.40 and above are shown F1 integration
F2 formalization F3 routinization
F4 standardization F5 unknown
F6 unknown IN12
0.88 IN13
0.87 IN14
0.83 IN10
0.82 IN7
0.76 IN15
0.74 IN11
0.68 IN8
0.68 FO12
0.78 FO15
0.72 FO16
0.72 FO13
0.70
a
ST18 0.65
a
ST15 0.58
RO10 0.82
RO14 0.81
RO13 0.76
RO1 0.76
RO15 0.67
RO11 0.61
ST12 0.83
ST13 0.73
ST17 0.60
ST20 0.47
0.47
a
FO18 0.73
a
FO20 0.59
0.41
a
FO14 0.44
0.51
a
ST19 0.71
a
FO19 0.47
0.58
a
ST16 0.50
Eigenvalue 9.51
3.92 2.75
1.35 1.08
1.03 Percentage of variance
31.7 13.1
9.2 4.5
3.6 3.5
Cumulative percentage 31.7
44.8 54.0
58.5 62.1
65.6 of variance
a
Item dropped.
0.98, AGFI s 0.90, NFI s 0.96, and CFI s 0.97. The Ž
. root mean square residual RMSR is only 0.038,
which is also very good. The results indicate that time-based manufactur-
ing practices have a strong, positive, and direct relationship with three of the work system practices:
standardization, formalization, and integration. These relationships are described in Hypotheses 1, 2, and 4,
and they have gamma coefficients of 0.54, 0.41, and 0.61, respectively. The corresponding t-statistics are
shown in Table 6. All are significant at p - 0.01. The direct relationship between time-based manufac-
turing practices and routinization, Hypothesis 3, was not significant.
The results also indicate that standardization has a positive impact on formalization and this, in turn,
has a positive impact on routinization. Hypotheses 5 and 6 describe these relationships. They have Beta
coefficients of 0.31 and 0.37, respectively. The t-sta- tistics are shown in Table 6. Both relationships are
significant at p - 0.01.
Achieving standardization and integration has a positive impact on a firm’s competitive capabilities.
These relationships are described in Hypotheses 7
Table 5 Work system practices: construct-level factor analysis
Questionnaire item Construct-level factor analysis Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy s 0.87;
factor loadings of 0.40 and above are shown F1 — integration
F2 — routinization F3 — formalization
F4 — standardization IN12
0.88 a
s 0.91 IN13
0.88 IN14
0.83 IN10
0.83 IN7
0.76 IN15
0.75 IN11
0.68 IN8
0.68 RO10
0.83 a
s 0.85 RO14
0.81 RO1
0.78 RO13
0.76 RT15
0.66 RT11
0.60 FO12
0.83 a
s 0.87 FO13
0.79 FO15
0.76 FO16
0.73 ST12
0.81 a
s 0.79 ST17
0.75 ST13
0.74 ST20
0.65 Eigenvalue
7.10 3.77
2.26 1.31
Percentage of variance 32.3
17.1 10.3
5.9 Cumulative percentage of variance
32.3 49.4
59.7 65.6
Fig. 2. Structural model of work system practices, time-based manufacturing and competitive capabilities.
Table 6 Summary of LISREL results
Results of the model GFI s 0.98, AGFI s 0.90, NFI s 0.96, CFI s 0.97, RMSR s 0.038 Hypothesis
Relationship LISREL
t-Value Significant?
Ž .
coefficient p - 0.01
1 TMBP
™Standardization 0.54
10.38 Yes
2 TMBP
™Formalization 0.41
7.30 Yes
3 TMBP
™Routinization 0.01
0.15 No
4 TMBP
™Integration 0.61
12.49 Yes
5 Standardization
™Formalization 0.31
5.42 Yes
6 Formalization
™Routinization 0.37
5.23 Yes
7 Standardization
™CC 0.22
3.28 Yes
8 Formalization
™CC 0.07
1.00 No
9 Routinization
™CC y0.01
y0.09 No
10 Integration
™CC 0.23
3.72 Yes
and 10, and they have significant Beta coefficients 0.22 and 0.23, respectively. The t-statistics are shown
in Table 6. Formalization and routinization did not have significant impacts on competitive capabilities.
6. Discussion and implications for managers
