Journal of Business Industrial Marketing

To investigate the moderating effects of partner criticality, we estimated a two-group model, one group for high criticality and the other for low criticality. The estimation started with four constraints added to the model - one constraint per causal link. The LM test for releasing constraints indicated that there is a significant difference on the path between partner coordination and market performance (p — 0.012, xX — 6.25). Subsequently, we released the constraint and re-estimated the model. The LM test suggests again that the constraint between firm coordination and market performance be released (p — 0.01, I2 — 6.574). Subsequently, the constraint was released before the final two-group model is estimated. According to the results, the final two group model fits the empirical covariances well with xX — 251.973 on 146df, LTI — 0.926, CFI — 0.941, SRMR — 0.085, and RMSEA — 0.063 (Hu and Bentler, 1999).

We tested for moderating effects of partner criticality based on the final two-group estimation. As shown in Table IV and Figure 2, the results reveal that partner criticality does not moderate the effects of IT adoption on firm coordination and partner firm coordination (p > 0.05). Thus, H5a and H5b are not supported. However, we found a positive moderating effect of partner criticality on the influence of firm coordination on market performance (p < 0.01), which lend support to H5c. Finally, the results indicate that partner criticality moderates the effect of partner coordination on market performance of the firm negatively (p < 0.05), which is against our expectation in H5d. Therefore, H5d is not supported.

0 0

Post a comment