A STUDY OF THE FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO

THE SUCCESS OF INDUSTRIAL CLUSTER
IMPLEMENTATION IN THAILAND










Ariyaporn Suranartyuth









A Dissertation Submitted in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy (Development Administration)
School of Public Administration
National Institute of Development Administration
2010

ABSTRACT

Title of Dissertation A Study of the Factors Contributing to the Success of
Industrial Cluster Implementation in Thailand
Author Ariyaporn Suranartyuth
Degree Doctor of Philosophy (Development Administration)
Year 2010


This research studies the factors contributing to the success of industrial
cluster implementation in Thailand. The objectives of this research are: 1) to study
the criteria of effectiveness and efficiency, 2) to identify the factors that lead to
successful industrial cluster implementation in Thailand from an implementation
perspective, and 3) to receive suggestions for improving the implementation of the
industrial clusters.
The research is conducted at the enterprise level of analysis. Secondary data
from questionnaires belonging to the Department of Industrial Promotion (DIP) were
used for the research. The respondents were enterprises that joined the industrial
cluster project implemented by the DIP in fiscal year 2007. During that year, the DIP
implemented 22 industrial clusters in various areas in Thailand. The questionnaires
that were responded to were collected randomly for each industrial cluster with an
expectation of 10 answered questionnaires per industrial cluster. Therefore, the
questionnaires represented 220 enterprises. A Likert scale was used for the questionnaires
but four kinds of Likert scales appeared in the research: 1) a 10-point Likert scale
from level 1 to level 10; 2) a 5-point Likert scale from level 0 to level 5 and level 1 to
level 5; 3) a 3-point Likert scale from level 1 to level 3; and 4) the decision to say
“yes” or “no.” The different levels ranged from strongly disagree at level 1 to higher
levels of agreement; level 0 meant “no opinion.”
For the research methodology, cross-tabulation was used to study such
characteristics of fundamental statistics as frequency distribution and percentage. The
iv
disaggregate method was used to disaggregate the data that were collected from the
cluster level of analysis to the enterprise level of analysis; this method distributed the
data from 22 units to 220 units. Replacing the mission value by series mean was used
as a way to replace the missing value by approximation. A z-score was used in the
case of different constructing scales, this being one of the methods of standardizing
data. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used for simultaneous study of a series
of interrelate dependence relationships among variables or indicators.
Overall, the findings of the study provided interpretations, suggestions,
limitations, and recommendations for future research. The findings also served to
draw implications for research, practice, and theory.






ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To obtain a Ph.D. was my dream since I was studying at the university level for
degrees at both UCLA and UCSB. However, to study for the Ph.D. in Development
Administration in the school of Public Administration was absolutely not my initial intention
for continued study since my background was in economics. However, since I have worked in
the government sector, my thought has changed perspective—I now believe that a solution
sometimes comes from experience and opinion with reasonable support. Therefore, I
changed my field of study at the Ph.D. level to Development Administration since I believed
that this field would provide me with the ability to explore conceptual knowledge from a
different angle and would benefit my career path in working for the government and for the
public benefit. However, the pursuit of doctoral studies, in particular writing a dissertation,
has been a tough journey. Along the way, faculty, friends, and family have provided support
and guidance, and have encouraged me to make my dream of obtaining a Ph.D. possible. I
am deeply grateful to all of them. In particular, I would like to express my sincere
appreciation to:
Assistant Professor Dr. Somchai Harnhirun, the chairperson of the examining committee.
He was not only my committee chairperson, but was also my supervisor. He pointed out the
way to go while I was facing a hard time solving problems with data collection. He was also
my professional model on my career path. Assistant Professor Dr. Pairote Pathranarakul, a
member of the examining committee, for graciously accepting my invitation to be part of my
journey. Assistant Professor Dr. Kasemsarn Chotchakornpant, my dissertation advisor, provided
me with continued guidance regarding concepts, research methodology, great conclusions for
my dissertation. His questions made my dissertation more complete, and I feel proud to
present the story of my dissertation to others.
My father (Major General Somsak), my mother (Mrs. Prakairat), my two brothers
(Verachat and Vatanarak), my husband (Police Major Dr. Arit), my two sons (Intaradej and
my other son who was with me during the entire time of my hard work on my dissertation
since I was pregnant with him). Although only my name, Ariyaporn, appeared for the owner
of this dissertation, in reality we all obtained the Ph.D. together. My Ph.D. would not been
possible without their unconditional love and continual support and encouragement.

Ariyaporn Suranartyuth
January 2011


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v
TABLE OF CONTENTS vi
LIST OF TABLES viii
LIST OF FIGURES ix

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Statement of the Problems 1
1.2 Research Questions 3
1.3 Objectives of the Study 3
1.4 Significance of the Study 3
1.5 Scope of the Study 4
1.6 Research Contribution 6
1.7 Definition of Terms 6
CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF INDUSTRIAL CLUSTER IMPLEMENTATION 9
2.1 Review of National Industrial Development Policy 9
2.2 Industrial Promotion Measures from the 1
st
to the 10
th
Plan 13
2.3 Review of the Cluster Concept 18
2.4 Industrial Cluster Implementation in Thailand 30
2.5 Framework of Industrial Cluster Policy 32
2.6 Key Success Factors 35
CHAPTER 3 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND PROPOSED 37
MODEL OF STUDY
3.1 Review of Literature of the Major Factors Affecting 37
Implementation of Policy
3.2 Policy Success or Failure 56
vii
3.3 Previous Study on Policy Implementation 63
3.4 Conceptual Model of the Study 65
3.5 Research Hypotheses 66
3.6 Variables and Measurement of Variables 67
CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 72
4.1 Research Design 72
4.2 Unit of Analysis 76
4.3 Target Population and Sampling 77
4.4 Data Collection Method 77
4.5 Method of Data Analysis 78
4.6 Operationalization of Variables 87
CHAPTER 5 DATA ANALYSIS 97
5.1 Results of Descriptive Statistics 97
5.2 Statistical Testing 107
CHAPTER 6 INTERPRETATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 128
6.1 Interpretations of the Research 129
6.2 Criteria of Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Industrial 137
Cluster
6.3 Suggestions 138
6.4 Limitations of the Research 140
6.5 Recommendations for Further Research 141

BIBLIOGRAPHY 143
APPENDICES
Appendix A Questionnaire (English) 154
Appendix B Questionnaire (Thai) 181
Appendix C Details of Factor Loading 207
Appendix D Model of Successful Implementation by Amos 217
Version 6.0
BIOGRAPHY 220


viii

LIST OF TABLES

Tables Page

1.1 The Growth Rate of the GDP 4
1.2 Names of Industrial Clusters Promoted by the DIP, Fiscal Year 2007 5
1.3 Criteria for Classifying SMEs 8
2.1 Industries/Sectors Versus Industrial Clusters 23
2.2 Nawelaers’s Summary Regarding Classifying Different Levels of 26
Aggregation
4.1 The Dimensions of Social Research from a Quantitative Approach 73
4.2 Characteristics of Quantitative Research 74
4.3 Definitions and Operationalization of Variables 88
5.1 General Information on Enterprises 97
5.2 Establishment of Industrial Clusters 100
5.3 Establishing Units of Industrial Clusters 100
5.4 Summary of Obstacles to Implementing Industrial Clusters in 102
Fiscal Year 2007
5.5 Factors and Reliability Analysis (Cronbach’s Alpha) 109
5.6 Explaining the Various Statistical Values for Considering the 111
Appropriateness of EFA
5.7 Correlation Matrix of Independent Variables 115
5.8 Meaning of Variables 116
5.9 The Overall Model Fit Indices 118
5.10 Causal Relationships of a Successful Implementation Model 120
5.11 Coefficient of Determination of a Successful Implementation Model 121
5.12 Direct and Indirect Effect Matrix 122
5.13 Summary of Results of Hypothesis Testing 126
6.1 Different Stages of Cluster Development 141

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figures Page

2.1 Framework for Defining the Industrial Cluster 21
2.2 Clusters at Different Levels of Aggregation 27
3.1 Van Meter and Van Horn’s Model: A Model of Inter-Governmental 46
Policy Implementation
3.2 Sabatier and Mazmanian’s Model 48
3.3 Edwards’s Model 49
3.4 Sabatier’s Model 51
3.5 Rational Model 52
3.6 Management Model 53
3.7 Organizational Development Model 53
3.8 Bureaucratic Process Model 54
3.9 Political Model 55
3.10 General Model 56
3.11 Effectiveness of Industrial Cluster Project on Goal - Attainment 59
Approach
3.12 Effectiveness of Industrial Cluster Project on System Approach 61
3.13 B/C Ratio 62
3.14 The Purposed Model for Analysis 66
4.1 Basic Research Process 75
4.2 Z-Score 80
4.3 Path Diagram of a Simple Structure Theory 82
4.4 Path Diagram of a Complex Structural Model 83
4.5 Formative and Reflective Models 85
4.6 Steps in Research Design 96
5.1 Cronbach Alpha Coefficient (α ) 108
5.2 The Results of the Hypothesized Model of Successful Implementation 117
of the Industrial Cluster in Thailand
5.3 The Causal Relationships of Supportive Hypotheses 119

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Statement of the Problems

In Thailand, the total number of SMEs is the biggest portion in the Thai
economy and the number of SMEs in Thailand has increased rapidly. The total
number of enterprises in Thailand in 2009 was 2,900,759, of which SMEs accounted
for 2,896,106 enterprises, including 2,884,041 small enterprises and 12,065 medium
enterprises. There were 4,653 large enterprises. SMEs accounted for 99.6 percent,
99.7 percent, 99.8 percent of all enterprises in 2007, 2008, and 2009 rapidly (OSMEP,
2010). However, Thai SMEs currently have exerted pressure on profits due to the
reduction of unit costs because of the “China rate” and the current rise in material
prices. Local industry and traditional industry, which are not different in performance
from the cheap products of China and other countries, have suffered from a significant
drop in sales due to increases in imports. Therefore, the Thai government has
initiated significant policy concerning an increase in Thai competitiveness and the
policy has been counted as a national agenda and a major strategy. A competitiveness
strategy will lead to sustainable development and prosperity for the industrial
economics of Thailand. Moreover, many studies have stated that SMEs are the most
important part in propelling the national economy since they represent the largest
portion and are easily adaptable. In order to implement industrial clusters, the
government and private sector have to collaborate in order to achieve the same goal,
which is increasing competitiveness. However, the government needs to promote and
support the work procedures of the private sector in order to increase overall national
productivity. To pursue the strategy, it needs to have an instrument for increasing
competitiveness, which is the industrial cluster. Thus, the Thai government has
included an industrial cluster policy in its 10
th
National Economics and Social
Development Plan (NESDB, 2007).
2

The reason that Thai government has chosen industrial cluster policy to be a
tool to boost Thai SMEs’ competitiveness in order to reduce uncertainty and to
maintain their competitiveness is because SMEs may be willing to develop new
products but do not have the economies of scale or scope in their R&D functions,
which large firms often do have. Large firms may not possess the specialized
knowledge of SMEs. Through co-operation, a trade-off can be realized between a
large and a small firm. In order to attain the economies of scale or scope, SMEs do
not necessarily have to co-operate with large firms. It is also possible that only small
firms should be involved in co-operatives in order to attain these economies or only
large firms should participate in a cluster in order to develop a certain specialization
(Muizer and Hospers, 1998). Thus, the concept of the cluster is now very well known.
Actually, the cluster concept has attracted the attention of both academics and policy-
makers for a long time. In the 1970s and 1980s, clusters established a strong position
in the world market for both traditional products (e.g. ‘Third Italy’) and high
technology products (e.g. Silicon Valley). During the 1990s, clusters were widely
recognized as important settings in stimulating the productivity and innovativeness of
companies and in the formation of new businesses since the work of Harvard
Business School’s Professor Michael Porter (1990), in the Competitive Advantage of
Nation popularized the concept.
Regarding the pursuit of the cluster policy, the Department of Industrial
Promotion (DIP), Ministry of Industry has been assigned to be main organizations to
implement the industrial cluster since 2006 throughout every region in Thailand. The
DIP had implemented 21 industrial clusters in 2006 and 22 industrial clusters in 2007
during the first and second year of implementation. The yearly allocated budgets from
the DIP for implementing the industrial cluster were 20.06 million baht and 12.55
million baht in fiscal year 2006 and 2007, respectively. For implementing the
industrial cluster, the DIP is the one that sets up the principles, work procedures, and
following, monitoring, and evaluation of implementing the cluster. For developing
industrial clusters, the DIP will take 5 years continuously to start up and promote
them with input budgets and needed assistance; however, budget allowances and
assistances for the cluster will be decreased year by year in order to encourage
industrial clusters to be self-sustaining after 5 years.
3

1.2 Research Questions

In order to understand the implementation of the industrial cluster specified in
the above objectives, the following questions must be studied.
1) What are the criteria for identifying the effectiveness and efficiency of the
industrial cluster?
2) What are the major factors contributing to the success of implementing the
industrial cluster?
3) What are the suggestions for improving the implementation of the
industrial cluster in Thailand?

1.3 Objectives of the Study

The research objectives aim mainly to study the factors contributing to the
success of industrial cluster implementation in Thailand. The research will focus on
industrial clusters that have been implemented by the DIP since the DIP is the main
organization that is employing the industrial cluster in Thailand; therefore, the
outcome from the research can represent the entire picture of the Thai industrial
cluster. Moreover, through studying those factors, effectiveness and efficiency will
be firstly calculated to determine the success of the industrial cluster before
identifying the factors leading to the success of industrial cluster implementation in
Thailand. The two objectives of this study are as follows:
1) To study the criteria for the effectiveness and efficiency of the industrial
cluster.
2) To identify the factors that lead to successful industrial cluster implementation
in Thailand from an implementation perspective.
3) To offer suggestions for improving the implementation of the industrial
cluster.

1.4 Significance of the Study

Policy implementation has recently been viewed as an important stage in
achieving policy goals. Both stages take in to account for successful policy. In terms
4

of academic benefit, this research will attempt to identify and test the factors/variables
that affect the successful policy. The findings of this study may be useful for
comparing similar implementations in order to see if different types of policy (i.e. the
promotion type and the enforcement type) share the same factors.
In terms of benefit for the economy, initiating industrial clusters is a powerful
instrument for boosting Thai economic indicators since most industrial cluster
members are compose of SMEs; and SMEs are one of the most significant economic
sectors for stimulating the Thai economy. The lessons learned from study regarding
the factors contributing to the success of industrial cluster implementation will be
beneficial for developing cluster policy or similar policies to meet optimal objectives
in the future.

1.5 Scope of the Study

1) Scope of Time Frame
For the study, the second year (2007) of the DIP’s implementation will be
focused on because the DIP had gained experience for implementing the industrial
clusters in the second year, the first year (2006) was the first time that the DIP had
implemented the industrial clusters. Thus, the second year is the best period for
study. If considering the year after 2007, it found that Thailand faced the situation of
declining economy since 2008 due to the investors lack of confidence to invest in
Thailand since unstable Thai political situation. As seen in table 1.1 below, the table
shows the growth rate of the domestic product (GDP); the GDP growth rate in 2007
was 4.9 percent, and after that, Thailand faced an economic recession since the GDP
growth rate was 2.5 percent in 2008,and -2.3 percent in 2009.

Table 1.1 The Growth Rate of the GDP

Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
GDP 4.5 5.0 4.9 2.5 -2.3

Source: NESDB, 2010.
5

2) Scope of Industrial Clusters
Twenty-two industrial clusters will be studied, and the details are illustrated
below.

Table 1.2 Names of Industrial Clusters Promoted by the DIP, Fiscal Year 2007

No. Industrial Clusters Province
1 Furniture Bangkok
2 Leather Bangkok and Suburban Area
3 1
st
Craft Bangkok Bangkok and Suburban Area
4 Gems and Jewelry Kanchanaburi Province
5 Silk Products Khonkaen Province
6 Chonburi Automotive /
Machinery Parts
Chonburi Province
7 Eastern Parawood Products Chonburi Province
8 Processing Oranges Chiangmai Province
9 Processing Longan Chiangmai Province
10 Mulberry Paper Chiangmai Province
11 Textiles Chiangmai Province
12 Processing Pig Products Nakornratchasima Province
13 Processing Seafood Nakhonsithammarat Province
14 Rice Processing Pichit Province
15 Rice Processing Phitsanulok Province
16 Engines Phitsanulok Province
17 Ceramics Lampang Province
18 Rice Mills Suphanburi Province
19 Suphanburi Food Industry Suphanburi Province
20 Parawood Suratthani Province
21 Rice Mills Udornthani Province
22 Silk Product Ubon Ubonratchathani Province

Source: DIP, 2007.
6

1.6 Research Contribution

1) To gain knowledge about what factors are significant in creating industrial
cluster implementation success since cluster development is a government policy for
enhancing Thai competitiveness. The National Economic and Social Development
Board (NESDB) states that SMEs are a power engine to stimulate the country’s
economy and cluster development mainly focuses on SMEs (NESDB, 2007).
2) The policy of industrial cluster implementation can be applied to other
similar implementation models for a shorter period of learning and for developing
appropriate models for the future.
3) The result of dissertation will provide recommendations for implementers
to develop higher quality work for industrial cluster implementation in order to
implement more successful industrial clusters in the future.

1.7 Definition of Terms

1) Ability of cluster members and policy implementers
This ability refers to ability and cognition regarding the project as well as the
ability to adjust procedure to obtain maximum benefit for the project.
2) Clarity of goal
Policy standards and objectives are clear and measurable. The existence of
clear, measurable, policy standards and objectives can greatly assist implementers in
the task of translating policy standards and objectives into effective and efficient
projects.
3) Cluster
A group of related businesses and the associated government agencies and
educational institutions that gather together through learning processes and
interdependencies to manage common meso-economic problems in order to achieve
higher economic performance and long-term competitiveness.
4) Communication
Inter-communications between implementing units and cluster members are
efficient and beneficial. The definition extends to the giving and receiving of information,
advice, and assistance.
7

5) Effectiveness
The achievement of industrial clusters stems from two criteria:
(1) The 1
st
criterion of effectiveness is the evaluation of pursuing the
industrial cluster project or goal attainment approach; this is derived from the DIP’s
term of reference (TOR). The details are illustrated in chapter 3, section 3.2.
(2) The 2
nd
criteria for effectiveness is the evaluation of the benefit of
being an industrial cluster or the system approach; this is selected from the study of
industrial cluster implementation that appears in chapter 3, section 3.2.
6) Efficiency
Measurement is the gain of benefit over the project break-even. It means that
the result of enterprises that join the industrial cluster project for doing business will
lead to economic benefits for the whole and greater than the cost of utilized resources.
The concept of efficiency that will be used in the dissertation is measured by the
benefit-cost ratio (B/C ratio). The B/C ratio is the ratio of the benefits of a project,
expressed in monetary terms, relative to their costs, also expressed in monetary terms.
All benefits and costs should be expressed in discounted present values. If the B/C
ratio is equal to or greater than 1, it indicates that the benefit from investment is equal
to or greater than the cost.
7) Management ability
It refers the ability to apply measures/regulations efficiently.
8) Participation of stakeholders
Stakeholders are willing to comply with industrial cluster projects. In
addition, stakeholders demonstrate continuity and consistency.
9) Perceived support
The level of financial, administrative, and human resources is supported to
DIP for the purpose of fulfilling the industrial cluster project.
10) Quality of project
The levels of structure in the industrial cluster are completed. The term quality
of a project is also defined as the levels of satisfaction with the project determined by
policy implementers and customers.
11) Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs)
SMEs comprise 3 business sectors; namely, 1) the manufacturing sector, 2) the
trading sector, and 3) the services sector. This research will employ the Ministry of
8

Industry’s SME definition of SMEs (as in the Ministry of Industry’s Rule/Announcement
dated August 11, 2002) using employment and asset as criteria. The following are the
criteria for classifying SMEs according to the rule.

Table 1.3 Criteria for Classifying SMEs

Employment (person) Asset Value (million Baht) Type of Enterprises
Small Medium Small Medium
Manufacturing
Trade (wholesales)
Trade (retails)
Services
Not more than 50
Not more than 25
Not more than 15
Not more than 50
51-200
26-50
16-30
51-200
Not More than 50
Not More than 50
Not More than 30
Not More than 50
50 - 200
50 - 100
30 - 60
50 - 200

Source: OSMEP, 2001.

12) Successful Implementation
The term means quantifying the degree of “goal fulfillment” or “project attained.”
It accounts for the continuity, implementation methods, awareness, and experience of
the target group. In the study, successful implementation requires two criteria:
effectiveness and efficiency.



CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF INDUSTRIAL CLUSTER IMPLEMENTATION

The study of the factors affecting industrial cluster implementation is needed
in order to learn more about the characteristics of the industrial cluster in success and
failure cases, and how industrial clusters are doing in Thailand. However, the background
of national industry development cannot be forgotten since this is connected to why
industrial clusters are needed. In addition, the background of national industry
development can broaden our views regarding national industry.

2.1 Review of National Industrial Development Policy

The new era of the economic development of Thailand came with the launch
of the first five years of the National Economic Development Plan in 1961. Prior to
this, the Thai economy depended on agricultural products such as rice, rubber, maize,
kenaf, teak, and tin. The industrialization beginning the first phase in Thailand started
around 1936, when there was public investment in the pulp and paper, cigarette,
textile, and food processing industries. Many of these public firms, however, went
bankrupt due to inefficiency and mismanagement. The new era of private enterprises
began with the first National Economic and Social Development Plan in 1950s.
The first plan of the National Economic and Social Development Plan
(1961-1966) emphasized the role of government in investing in infrastructure. The
industrial policy concentrated on the import-substitution industrialization and in favor
of private enterprises. The government stated in the plan that it would assist and
support local industries’ activities for both domestic and foreign firms. The first
Investment Promotion Act was introduced during this plan in 1960.
The second plan of the National Economic and Social Development Plan
(1967-1971) continued its support of the import-substitution industrialization policy,


10
emphasizing the industries that utilized domestic raw materials and labor intensive
industries. The attempt was to reduce the importation of intermediate goods in order
to decrease the balance of trade and balance of payment deficit.
The third National Economic and Social Development Plan (1972-1976)
had an important chance, when the export-led growth industrial policy replaced the
old import substitution policy. Incentives for export-oriented firms were provided by
the Board of Investment (BOI). During this period, the problem of the concentration
on industries was in the capital city and suburban area because of the lack of
infrastructure in the other areas of Thailand. The Thai government began to recognize
this problem and the decentralized industrial policy became another feature of
industry policy.
In export-led industrialization, the government first tried to neutralize the
tariffs on import. In 1982, the government announced a reduction on import tariffs for
processed food imports from 80 percent to 60 percent, while increasing tariffs on
chemicals and machinery to 30 percent in order to neutralize the tariff system.
However, this neutralization did not succeed; the government was forced to reduce
the tariffs in several intermediate and capital goods categories. Moreover, an
additional 10 percent surcharge was imposed on almost all imports in order to finance
the serious budget deficit.
From the fourth National Economic and Social Development Plan (1977-
1981) to the seventh plan (1992-1996), export promotion continued. In the fourth
plan large scale exporting firms were encouraged and an export-processing zone was
established. The relocation of industries had continued since the higher incentives
provided to investors who invested outside the Bangkok area. Along with the
provincial promotion, small (provincial) industries were explicitly given attention for
the first time. Measures like credit, risk assurance, technical assistance, market
arrangement, and assessment of investment prospects were provided to provincial
small and medium size industries.
The fifth National Economic and Social Development Plan (1982-1986)
formulated measures for expanding industrial estates and for strengthening preferential
taxes for industries located in the provinces.


11
In the sixth National Economic and Social Development Plan (1987-1991),
emphasis was placed on the re-structuring of tax incentives, agro-based industries,
and the diversification of manufacturing products and exports. As a result, the export
sector was very successful. This success, however, seemed to dazzle the public
authorities into turning away from the continuing campaign to promote small and
medium size and rural industries (Krongkaew, 1988). Thus, the promotion of SMIs
was more or less at a standstill during this period.
As industrial development proceeded in the seventh National Economic and
Social Development Plan (1992-1996), the diversification of the export market and
the location of industrial setting is focused on concern. From the sixth plan, small and
medium size industry (SMI) development was the responsibility of two agencies, the
National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB) and the Department of
Industrial Promotion (DIP) of the Ministry of Industry. The NESDB’s task was to
formulate an industrial development plan and the DIP’s responsibility as to promote
and help the industrial sector. Unfortunately, while the NESDB industrial development
plan was obscured by the bigger plan of the eastern seaboard development, the DIP
gave equal priority to all industrial sectors, large or small.
In the eighth National Economics and Social Development Plan (1997-
2001), after emphasis was placed on expanding the industrial sector in order to
stimulate the Thai economy, the eighth plan turned out to be more focused on shifting
the development paradigm from a segmented approach to holistic, people-centered
development, with the goal of achieving a pattern of development which as efficient,
sustainable, and which ensured that all Thai people would receive a fairer share of the
benefits of development than they had in past plans. It seemed that the eighth plan
had a direction in which national development had to fulfill the major long-term
goals. This implied that the development of every project was needed to come from
people-centered and supported projects by part of all the Thai population. With a
holistic approach, the cooperation and participation of agencies concerned the
formulation and implementation of every project.
Referring to the ninth National Economic and Social Development Plan
(2002-2006), the ninth plan began with the national development framework adopted
by H.M. the King’s principle, named “sufficiency economy.” The theme of sufficiency


12
economy related to a balance between the people, society, the economy, and the
environment. The three components had an equal importance so that it was called by
another name, the “middle path.” The “middle path” was defined as the strategy to
steer the country through a series of crises to a sustainable and quality presence in the
world community.
Regarding the economic side, the ninth plan focused on economic development
for sustainability. It emphasized that development required the continuity of economic
stability, and economic growth required the benefit of the majority of the population.
Production and consumption served to improve life quality and respect for the
environment. The economic strategy for the ninth plan stated that Thailand needed to
improve production methods in order to be more competitive in the global scale.
Thailand’s goods were supposed to create value-added goods while retaining the Thai
identity as differentiated from competitors.
The tenth National Economic and Social Development Plan (2007-2011)
was formulated to serve the continuity of the sufficiency economy philosophy from
the 9
th
plan. In this plan, Thailand faced a major chance in many contexts, including
opportunities to expand the economy and constraints for national development. Both
required full preparation to adapt to future change and to reap benefits by keeping up
with globalization and building resilience in all sector since accordance with the
sufficiency economy philosophy.
The tenth plan focused on increasing inter-country flows of capital, goods,
services, and people. Thailand had to use an aggressive approach to trade policy both
in expanding markets and in encouraging domestic producers to improve their
competitiveness on the foundation of knowledge, natural resources, and Thai-ness. In
addition, Thailand had to emphasize upgrading management of inter-country capital
movements and to be fully prepared for fluctuations of currency values and interest
rates in the world market. The strategies to reform the structure of the economy for
balance and sustainability were to reform the production structure to increase
productivity and enhance the value of products and services.





13
2.2 Industrial Promotion Measures from the 1
st
to the 10
th
Plan

During this period, the measures to promote industrial development can be
summarized as follows.
1) Duty and Tax Exemption
Duty and Tax exemption have been provided by the Customs Department of
the Ministry of Finance since 1971. The exemption was import duties, business taxes,
and multiple taxes on imported materials used in export production.
2) Quantitative Import Restrictions
The restrictions were considered to be modest in Thailand compared to other
NICs. In 1986, there were only 65 products that required import licenses. The import
restriction attempted to protect domestic producers in the fields of automobiles,
engines, steel and iron, etc. Quantitative restrictions were administered by the
Ministry of Commerce. As of 1980, 16 products were banned while 35 products were
subject to approval. Currently, import restrictions are limited to very few products.
3) Domestic Content Requirements
Under the Factory Act, domestic content requirements could be imposed by
the Ministry of Industry. The proportion of content required varied according the
products. For example, in 1973 the motorcycle industry was required 50 percent of
domestic content and it was required 15-25 percent for the car assembly industry.
The reason for the objective of the domestic content requirement was to stimulate
domestic industry activities in order to make domestic businesses more competitive.
Currently, domestic content requirements are made only of the milk industry.
4) Investment Incentives by the Board of Investment (BOI)
The investment incentives in Thailand are provided by the Board Of
Investment (BOI), which is supported by the Industrial Promotion Act of 1960. The
Board is chaired by the Prime Minister and has the function of providing privileges to
the desired industries.
The BOI has discretionary authority to determine the list of activities that are
eligible for promotion. The BOI usually categorizes industries into 3 groups. Group A
includes mainly capital intensive industries such as chemicals, electrical appliances,
automobiles, and the shipbuilding industry. Group B consists of the assembling


14
industries, such as transport-equipment assembly, agricultural-machinery assembly,
and electrical appliance assembly. Group C concerns mainly the labor intensive and
service industries, including food processing, the clothing and textile industries, and
hotels services. Group A, however, is usually the one to benefit most from the BOI.
The incentives given to 3 groups were:
(1) Group A: Full exemption from import duties and business and sales
taxes on raw material for five years.
(2) Group B: A 50 percent exemption from import duties and business
sale taxes for five years.
(3) Group C: An exemption of one-third of import duty and business and
sales taxes for five years.
It can be observed that policy during this period was in favor of large industry
and SMEs did not meet the criteria of either one of those three groups.
There was no major change in this incentive during the 1970s, except that
there was a merger between Group A and Group B. In the mid 1980s, the above
categories were abolished. However, the incentives were still the same and three
types of firms qualified for promotion assistance.
(1) The firms located outside Bangkok.
(2) Export-oriented firms (firms that export at least 80 percent of their
capacity).
(3) The firms were located in promotion zones.
The tax incentives given to firms have remained similar to those provided in
the original Investment Promotion Act. The maximum of a five-year tax holiday is
still active. Tax incentive for exporting firms is now the same as the privilege given
to group A in the 1960s and 1970s. However, regarding the other types of investment
mentioned earlier, import duties and business taxes were reduced by the maximum of
90 percent. This is again still biased in favor of big firms.
Although tax incentives from the BOI explicitly support rural industry which
is by nature small and medium, the SME is still not a target of these measures.
5) Industrial Promotional Zone
In the past, firms enjoyed being located in Bangkok because Bangkok has
superior facilities, including a seaport, airport, transportation, and telecommunications.


15
Bangkok is also the center of all government services and the bank system.
Moreover, Bangkok contains the biggest market and biggest distribution network.
After several decades of development, Bangkok faced a bottleneck of
development. Problem with traffic, pollution, and congestion were abundant. The
Thai government, therefore, tried to decentralize the industry more to other regions.
The problem was that the government had to provide enough compensation for what
the firms lost when located outside Bangkok, including the lack of good facilities such
as electricity, telecommunications, increasing transportation costs to the biggest
market, Bangkok, and to the port, etc.
The investment promotion zone was, therefore, created by providing facilities
to the group of industries in that zone. The incentives of the credit by the IFCT and
other tax incentives were relatively small and could not offset the increasing cost of
transportation, and limited access to superior facilities and services. The Industrial
Estate Authority of Thailand was established to set up the industrial estate. This was
because the Thai budget could not provide enough facility to every region, the
industrial estate took advantage of the economy of scale by creating facilities such as
electricity, telephone, and water supply and water treatment at the same time in one
location. The industries in the special zone also received privileges from the BOI.
Industrial estates have been established at Bang Chan, Bangpoo, Lad Kabang
in Central of Thailand, and in Songkha in the south, and in Khonkaen in the
Northeast.
An export processing zone was also established for the export of manufacturing.
The zone was usually established near the port in order to reduce the transportation
costs of imported materials and from finished products to the port. Unlike than the
incentive given by the BOI, the customs department also provided location services
for customs’ procedures (and the import material in this zone did not have to pay any
duty when the item arrived; thus there was no need have to wait for a rebate).
6) Soft Loans by the Industrial Finance Corporation of Thailand (IFCT)
and the Small industry Finance Office (SIFO)
The IFCT was established in 1959 as a privately-owned company. However,
the largest shareholder, Krung Thai Bank, as almost owned by the government. The
function of the IFCT was to provide loans to industrial projects. The IFCT provide


16
interest rate incentives by giving a 1 percent lower interest rate than the commercial
bank rate to the food processing and agricultural industry and gave a 0.5 percent
lower rate for activities outside Bangkok.
The SIFO was established in 1964 and was managed by Krung Thai Bank.
This is one of the agencies that the government created solely for SMEs. The
objective of this organization was to provide financing for small-scale industry.
However, the finances through this channel were relatively small since the
organization had no branches and Krung Thai bank was very conservative in lending.
Moreover, it was more convenient for entrepreneurs to borrow from a commercial
bank.
7) Electricity Rebate
To reduce the cost of exporters, the Electricity Generation Authority of
Thailand has rebated 20 percent of electricity use in the production of export activities
since 1972.
8) Technology and Manpower Policy
Science technology and manpower development are very important in the
development in East Asia. Since the developing countries have to complete with
developed countries that are using automated techniques to regain competition in
labor intensive products, the ability of developing countries therefore depends on the
availability of 1) a skilled and adaptable workforce, and 2) scientific and technological
manpower capable of linking Thailand to international technology and modifications
to suit local conditions.
Regarding the incentive aspect, the BOI provides incentives by reducing the
tariffs on all imported R&D equipment.
The direct intervention is very small. There are only a few government studies,
especially on industrial fields. The role of university research is minimal due to the
limited budget.
Regarding manpower policy, the Thai government has realized the importance
of labor. However, there is still a lack of skilled labor, especially technicians,
engineers, and field workers in computers and communication. Thus, there has been
an expansion in education to support both in elementary and higher education.
However, the skilled manpower is still inadequate. The educational institutions


17
producing science and technology manpower remain severely constrained in terms of
both resources needed to keep up with advance sin knowledge and to maintain
modern facilities and in terms of retaining quality staff. The very high gap between
the salary between public education institutions and commercial private industry also
forced qualified educational staff out. When we look at educational institutions, there
is very high proportion of students in non S&Ts compared to that of other countries,
such as South Korea.
In term of training programs, the government training programs are very
limited, most of the government training programs were in art craft and agricultural
fields. Most of training programs had done by the DIP.
From the above-mentioned summarized plans and measures, the priority of the
measures was not to promote SMEs. The SMEs’ problems have been mentioned but
no direct policy/measure has been formulated. Most of the policies were biased
toward large-scale industry. The measures for SMEs have been limited to skill
development by the Department for Industrial Promotion, and particularly for cottage
industries. Other measures were on the financial side, and the Small Industry Finance
Office (SIFO) has also been created but their role in helping SMEs is still very
limited.
However, a clear sign of the Thai government supporting SMEs can be seen in
the ninth National Economic and Social Development Plan (2002-2006), where SME
promotion is a mean to developing national economy to achieve the desired objective,
which is for Thai society to attain strength and stability in three areas; namely,
becoming a society of quality people, a knowledge-based economy, and a society
whereby all sectors cooperate towards a common purpose. The main strategy to
promote SMEs is this plan to increase the capabilities and competitiveness of the
country through promotion of SMEs as a means to create employment and to expand
and stabilize the production base, which will lead to the restructuring of manufacturing
and trade in a direction that will pave the way towards a strengthened self-sufficient
economy.
The tools for increasing the capability of SMEs are the cluster development
approach, supply chains, and community networks on a foundation of modern
knowledge and local wisdom, Thai culture, and biodiversity, to create products that


18
have high quality and high value, and brands that command market acceptance; a
good investment atmosphere will be cultivated to attract foreign investment, and Thai
overseas investment will be promoted. In addition, laws and regulations have to be
amended, and various standards and systems have been adjusted. International trade
policy is designed to support changes in production structure and to increase
competitiveness.
9) To Promote Conditions for More Rapid Economic Recovery
In terms of fiscal policy, the government has started to speed up economic
recovery through appropriate tax measures and the acceleration of government
budgetary disbursement. For monetary policy, the government considers the
maintenance of adequate liquidity, the stabilization of prices and rates of exchange,
the slowing of capital out flows, and maintaining the balance of payment surpluses at
an appropriate level.

2.3 Review of the Cluster Concept

Over decades, the concept of cluster development has gained massive
attention from scholars. The term cluster became really famous since Michael E.
Porter introduced the cluster concept in his 1990 book, “The Competitive Advantage
of Nations.” Since then, discourses and debates on the concept have been widely
undertaken among academicians, policymakers, and practitioners. This section aims
to provide a basic understanding of the concept. Actually, the term “cluster” by
highlighting economic geographical concentration, agglomeration, spatial proximity
and benefits is derived from increased scales. It draws on various perspectives or
schools of thought to define the term ‘cluster’ as it will be used in the study.
The first scholar that was the most influential person in the cluster field,
Michael Porter, suggests defining cluster in comprehensive way: “Clusters are
geographic concentrations of interconnected companies and institutions in a particular
field. Clusters encompass an array of linked industries and other entities important to
competition. They include, for example, suppliers of specialized inputs such as
components, machinery, and services, and providers of specialized infrastructure.
Clusters also often extend downstream to channels and customers and laterally to


19
manufacturers of complementary products and to companies in industries related by
skills, technologies, or common inputs. Finally, many clusters include governmental
and other institutions- such as universities, standard-setting agencies, think tanks,
vocational training providers, and trade associations- that provide specialized training,
education, information, research, and technical support” (Porter, 1998a: 78). His view
of cluster goes over the school of thought of business administration and strategy. A
short period later, Porter (1998b) gave another shorter definition of cluster: “A cluster
is a geographically proximate group of interconnected companies and associated
institutions in a particular field, linked by commonalities and complementarities.”
The OECD’s 1999 definition of cluster placed more emphasis on knowledge-
based activities and collective learning: “clusters are networks of interdependent
firms, knowledge-producing institutions, bridging institutions and customers, linked
in a production chain which creates added value. The concept of cluster goes beyond
that of firm networking, as it captures all forms of knowledge sharing and exchange
and it also goes beyond traditional sectoral analysis” (OECD, 2006).
Rosenfeld (1997: 4) defines the term cluster in the following: “[a cluster] is
very simple used to represent concentrations of firms that are able to produce synergy
because of their geographical proximity and interdependence, even though their scale
of employment may not be pronounced or prominences.” Swann and Prevezer (1996:
139) mention cluster as groups of firms within one industry based in one geographical
area. The definition of cluster refers to a large group of firms in related industries at a
particular location (Swann, Prevezer, and Stout, 1998: 1) Enright (1996: 191)
recommends that “[a] regional cluster is an industrial cluster in which member firms
are in close proximity to each other.” Van den Berg, Braun and Van Winden (2001:
187) define the clusters most closely related to the local or regional dimension of
networks. Most definitions share the notion of clusters as localized networks of
specialized organizations, whose production processes are closely linked through the
exchange of goods, services and/or knowledge.
Some scholars add the idea of business benefit for forming a strong cluster.
Crouch et al. (2001: 163) suggest something looser: a tendency for firms in similar
types of business to locate close together, though without having a particularly
important presence in an area. Also, Feser (1998: 26) recommend that “Economic


20
clusters are not just related and supporting industries and institutions, but rather
related and supporting institutions that are more competitive by virtue of their
relationships.” Another definition of cluster in term of “characterizing as networks of
producers of strongly interdependent firms (including specialized suppliers) linked
each other in a value-adding production chain” (Roelandt and Den Hertog, 1999: 9).
Another perspective of cluster is to add on innovation to the cluster making
many clusters more successful as discussed by Simmie and Sennett (1999: 51); they
define “an innovative cluster as a large number of interconnected industrial and/or
service companies having a high degree of collaboration, typically through a supply
chain, and operating under the same market conditions.”
In addition, Jacob and De Man (1996) mention that the term cluster can be
seen in a multidimensional approach that combines various dimensions.
1) The geographical dimension: localized clustering of economic activities,
mainly in a region, with the presence of a skilled labor pool and firms providing
specialized output.
2) The institutional dimension: clustering as an interactive learning process
between economic competent firms and other institutions generating and utilizing new
technologies.
3) The horizontal dimension: the clustering of firms that perform similar
activities. Also, there are direct competitors outside the cluster on the product market.
4) The vertical dimension: clustering of synergetic interdependent firms
(suppliers, main producers, and users) in a value chain of a certain product.
In Jacobs and de Man’s view, industry clusters can be classified according to
the dimensions shown in figure 2.1 below. The figure illustrates that market trends
have resulted in the growing strategic need for firms to increase their competitiveness.
One of the most ways of doing so is to develop an innovation strategy. However,
because of a lack of resources and in order to obtain economies of scale and/or scope
in their innovation activities, firms and especially SMEs are increasingly forced to
cluster.





21


Figure 2.1 Framework for Defining the Industrial Cluster
Source: Jacob and De Man, 1996.

Based on the many cluster definitions by famous scholars as shown above, the
definition of cluster that will be used for this dissertation will have four key
characteristics; namely, 1) geographic proximity or co-location of firms and related
businesses, 2) interdependencies or linkages of activities of firms in a value chain
with other related/supporting industries and agencies, 3) specialization based on
Cluster
Vertical
Horizontal
Institution
Geographical
Clustering
Market Trends
Competitiveness
Innovation


22
knowledge sharing and spillover, and 4) shared norms, values, and visions. Thus, the
term cluster can be defined after the combination of four key characteristics above as
a group of related businesses and associated government agencies and educational
institutions that gather together through learning processes and interdependencies to
manage common meso-economic problems in order to achieve higher economic
performance and long-term competitiveness; this definition will be used for the study.

2.3.1 Discussion of Cluster
The cluster concept is linked to cluster theory as developed by Michael E.
Porter. In his 1990 book, “The Competitive Advantage of Nations,” Porter introduced
the concept of industrial cluster as a critical mass of very competitive firms within
particular business fields, which could be found in most national, regional, or local
economies in advanced countries (Porter, 1998a: 197f). Porter’s cluster concept has
since been developed and the following definition is often used:

Cluster are geographic concentrations of interconnected companies,
specialized suppliers and service providers, firms in related industries,
and associated institutions (for example universities, standard agencies,
and trade association) in particular fields that compete but also co-operate.
(Porter, 1998a: 199; Porter, 2003: 253).

The geographic extent of the cluster can vary from a single city or
country/region to a whole country or even two or more neighboring countries (Porter
2003: 254). Clusters can differ widely according to the degree of sophistication and
the depth of the cluster but must, according to Porter, include companies that produce
end-products, specialized suppliers of components, input, machinery and services, as
well as financial institutions and related industries. Often the cluster will also have
companies in various stages of the supply chain of the industry (Porter, 1998a: 199f).
The extent of the cluster and its geographical location is not very specific, as
stated in the cluster definition above. However, location is a crucial part of the cluster
concept since theory seeks to describe how competitiveness is obtained within
geographically proximate groups of related businesses and companies. Porter starts
out describing the cluster as a national industrial agenda. However, a number of
clusters are based in just one part of a country and are not national as such, but rather


23
local or regional. The region is often used as an expression of the geographical extent
of a cluster.
The definition of cluster is very broad and thus it is possible for it to
encompass many different types of clusters with individual features. Clusters exist in
virtually every type of business, whether concerned with manufacturing of goods or
provision of services (Porter, 2003: 254). Although it is often industries with high
profiles such as information technology, financial services, and pharmaceuticals that
are mentioned as examples of successful clusters, they also exist in more traditional
industries such as forest products, furniture, and machinery (Enright, 2003: 100; Ketels,
2003: 4). Clusters within the same industry can differ widely, for example, because
they specialize within a particular field of the supply chain of the industry, have a
specific focus on a geographical area, or because the clusters target selected
customers or market segments (Ketels, 2003: 4).
Porter (1997) claims there are differences between the tradition industrial
sector and the industrial cluster, as illustrated in below table.

Table 2.1 Industries/Sectors Versus Industrial Clusters

Industries / Sectors Industrial Clusters
• Focus on one or a few end product
industries
• Include customers, suppliers,
service providers, and
specialized institutions
• Participants are direct or indirect
competitors
• Incorporate the array of
interrelated industries sharing
technology, skills, information,
inputs, customers, and channels


• Hesitancy to co-operate with rivals • Most participants are not direct


24
Table 2.1 (Continued)


Industries / Sectors Industrial Clusters
competitors but share common
needs and constraints
• Dialogue with government often
gravitates towards subsidy,
protection, and limiting rivalry
• Wide scope for improvements
on areas of common concern
that will improve productivity
and raise the plane of
competition
• Lower return on investments • Leverages public and private
investments
• Risk of dulling local competition • A forum for more constructive
and efficient business-
government dialogue

Source: Porter, 1997.

Previously, many scholars have argued that the idea of the cluster is not
different from the industry assembly such an industry association. Porter (1997)
provides a concept of the industrial cluster and industrial sector, his concept is very
interesting to the policy makers, and it causes the concept of the industrial cluster has
been transformed to the real practice by the policy makers.
Clusters can be observed going through a lifecycle with four distinct stages
(Porter 1998a: 237ff). The first stage is the established or embryonic cluster, which
is the starting point of cluster development and will develop to be the second stage,
which is the growth cluster, and with this stage, there is a room for growth. The
third stage is the mature cluster which is stable but might not experience growth any
more and might be on its way to becoming the fourth stage or the declining cluster,
which experiences failing growth. A declining cluster can possibly be reinvented and
enter into a new lifecycle.
The cluster is formed to relate to the stage of development of the economy and
competition. According to Porter an economy–local and national–can compete mainly


25
within three different modes, and a society should ideally develop continuously and
move from one mode to the next. The modes are outlined below.
“The factor driven mode” – competitive advantage stems from low labor and
natural resource costs. This advantage is relatively short lived, because when the
economy develops, the wages will rise and the advantage will be lost.
“The investment driven mode”- competitive advantages are based on the
efficiency in the production of standard products. Investments are required, and the
competitive advantages gained are more long lived, and the wages higher, but
financial crises and changes in demand can cause disruptions.
“The innovation driven mode”- the competitive advantage comes from the
ability to produce innovative goods using the most advanced technology, and will
provide the economy with long term competitive advantages.
Clusters occur within all three economic development stages, but it is when
the economy is innovation driven that highly developed innovative clusters occur,
whereas in the investment driven development stage, the cluster mainly provides
potential for increasing the productivity in terms of labor and production cost (Porter
and Ketels, 2003: 42f).
The competitive position of a company is closely related to the competitive
strategy pursued by the company. Porter has previously introduced two strategies;
namely, the cost reduction and the differentiation strategy. Cost reduction can be
obtained through reducing human, natural, and capital resource input in the
production of or relocating of the production where the required input is cheaper, for
instance, in low-wage countries. If pursuing a differentiation strategy the competitive
advantages gained are more lasting due to the difficulties competitors have imitating
them. The differentiation strategies can be based on both big and small changes and
they can be obtained through both the production and the product. Continuous
investments are a part of the differentiation strategy as well as innovation (Porter,
1990: 49ff).
Roelandt and Den Hertog (1999), in figure 2.2 below, represented clusters at
different levels of aggregation. First, there are macro clusters referring to the national
level. Macro or mega level clusters are composed of linkages within and between
industry groups, which indicate specialization patterns in the economic structure of a


26
country. Second, clusters can be concentrated in sectors or regions. Such clusters can
be found at the meso level of the economy and are made up of linkages within and
between industries or regions. As an example of a meso cluster, one can think of the
network of firms and the knowledge infrastructure of the Dutch flower cluster.
Finally, micro clusters at the firm level are of importance in the economy. In this case,
specialized suppliers are linked to one or a few core firms. Nauwelaers (2003) has used
Roelandt and Den Hertog’s (1999) concept in classifying different levels of aggregation.
Nauwelaers (2003) has added alternative names to each level, as seen in table 2.2 below.

Table 2.2 Nawelaers’s Summary Regarding Classifying Different Levels of Aggregation

Mega cluster Local network Knowledge-based
Level Macro
Meso
Micro Micro
Meso
Driving force Competitiveness of
the area (country,
region)
Competitiveness of
enterprises
Technological
development,
innovation
Origin Mapping studies,
Strategic analyses
Enterprises
dynamics
Knowledge flows
Science-industry
Main components Sectors, value-
chain, firms, and
other organizations
SMEs (other firms) Enterprises and
research centers
Success factors Critical mass,
factor conditions,
demand, adapted
labor market
Geographic
proximity,
entrepreneurship,
social capital,
communication,
vision, leadership,
competence base
Adequate
regulatory and
institutional
framework,
efficient
intermediaries,
match in
specializations,
scale economies,
knowledge flows


27

In both sources, Roelandt and Den Hertog  (1997) and Nauwelaers (2003), the
study was focused on Thai industrial clusters, and those clusters will be mostly
classified as meso-level clusters in the present study.

2.3.2 Success Factors of Cluster Development
There are some factors that are associated with the success and failure of
cluster development, as follows (Ketels, 2003; European Commission, 2006).
Mega-level Clusters
Meso-level Clusters
Micro-level Clusters
Figure 2.2 Clusters at Different Levels of Aggregation
Source: Roelandt and Den Hertog (1997)
Note: Rectangle represents ‘enterprise’ Oval represents ‘research center’


28
First, cluster development seems to be more successful if it is focused on a
cluster already strong and set in a location with a good business environment. This is
consistent with the view that cluster development should focus on activating clusters
rather than trying to create them from scratch. It is also consistent with the perspective
that cluster development is more successful if they are part of a broader strategy to
improve the microeconomic business environment in a particular region or country.
Isolated cluster development has less impact.
Second, cluster development seems to be more successful if they are based on
the sharing of a conceptual framework of competitiveness. In fact, the lack of a broad
consensus about the drivers of economic performance turns out to be the factor most
strongly associated with the failure of cluster development. A more subtle
implication is the need to manage the interest of different constituencies in the cluster:
Companies tend to be more interested in productivity growth and innovation within
existing firms rather than new ones, while government tends to be more interested in
job creation than higher productivity.
Third, cluster development needs at least a small operational budget to finance
an office with a dedicated cluster facilitator. If such a resource is not available,
cluster development is very difficult to sustain over time.
Fourth, to involve all relevant stakeholders of the innovation system – multiple
levels of government and public agencies, companies, educational and research
organizations, etc. (triple helix) – and facilitates personal relationships and mutual
trust as fundamental precondition for joint actions addressing the whole knowledge
triangle, for example, interaction between research, education, and innovation, which
are key drivers of the knowledge-based economy.
Fifth, cluster development needs to address specific barriers that businesses
face in a given market and focuses on the capabilities of the stakeholders as well as on
most promising international technology and market development perspectives,
develops and implements adequate and concrete actions, and thus provides a clear
value added for implementing adequate and concrete actions, and thus provides a
clear value added for all stakeholders, especially for businesses.
Sixth, to develop cluster, it is required strengthens the strategic capabilities of
all regional actors and thus, for example, facilitates sustainable business development


29
in line with the cluster strategy, adjusting longer-term business models to emerging
lead markets.
Seventh, the way to develop cluster is to facilitate knowledge flows between
actors and thus enhances unique learning processes leading to “localized capabilities”
within the cluster and facilitates trans-regional knowledge flows and learning
processes.
Eighth, to promote an experienced facilitator/promoter with professional and
excellent social competences (human factor) is needed for developing cluster by
showing high transparency, clear communication, and efficient and effective governance.
Ninth, a common vision and strategy is needed to share by all stakeholders,
and combines (often longer-term oriented) co-operation and (more short-term
oriented) competition between businesses (co-competition).
Tenth, the cluster development needs to integrate a broad rang of public
policies and private sector activities and mobilize sustainable support from public and
private stakeholders.

2.3.3 Common Failures of Cluster Development
Grabher (1993) and Heidenreich (1998) have discussed the general failures of
cluster development as follows:
First, traditional and strong clusters rely on past success and disregard
fundamental changes in the technological, socio-economic, and political environment.
The criteria described the fatal consequences of structural, political, and cognitive
lock-ins with neglect of external linkage and lack of foresight activities. For example,
with reference to the case of the Hollywood film cluster, this cluster faced lock-in
situations hindering needed adjustments to changing framework conditions and led to
a rigid mentality that aimed more at replicating past successes than producing new
things.
Second, policy-driven cluster initiatives, which are chosen by governments as
strategic relevant fields for regional development but do not take into account regional
capacities and needs, are doomed to failure in the long-run. Cluster development can
only be successful and sustainable if it involves and motivates the key regional
stakeholders and their respective needs. Examples for the inefficient use of public


30
money are the high numbers of struggling ICT and biotechnology cluster initiatives
funded by so many governmental programs all over Europe.
Third, cluster initiatives with strong reliance on public funds and poor
orientation towards future market demands struggle with sustainable cluster
development, in particular with regard to the aspect of self-financing. If the initiatives
try to avoid competition between cluster actors, they additionally disregard the value
of competition as an important incentive for innovation in clusters. Thus, cluster
initiatives neglect the value of economic market conditions that permanently depend
on public subsidies.

2.4 Industrial Cluster Implementation in Thailand

The Office of National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB)
created a policy for the industrial cluster in enhancing the competitiveness of Thai
industry in the 10
th
National Economic and Social Development Plan. In order to
implement the industrial cluster policy, the DIP has been assigned by the NESDB to
run the policy. The DIP has officially implemented the industrial cluster since 2006
and selected industrial groups dispersed throughout the country.

2.4.1 Steps in Developing the Industrial Cluster
In order to make policy successful, steps in developing the industrial cluster
are required. Sometimes, researchers do their work without planning, and this may
cause those researchers to miss a significant procedure (DIP, 2007).
1) To start developing the industrial cluster
(1) Information regarding the industrial cluster
(2) Research and implementation with stakeholders
(3) Create acceptability for the concept of the industrial cluster
2) Stimulate and set up implementation plans for developing
the industrial cluster
(1) Stimulate the industrial cluster
(2) Assess stakeholders’ demand and create implementation plans
for developing the industrial cluster


31
(3) Confirm to implementation plans for developing the industrial
cluster
3) Transform implementation plans to real practice
(1) Set up work procedures for developing the industrial cluster
(2) Set up industrial cluster projects
(3) Confirm the implementation plans for developing the industrial
cluster on the policy side
(4) Follow-up and evaluation
(5) Create the leaders of the industrial cluster
(6) Develop a cluster development agent (CDA)

2.4.2 The Role of the Industrial Cluster in Further Development
The NESDB (2003) has discussed the role of the industrial cluster in order to
ascertain the contributed benefits for stakeholders.
1) To assist finding special components for production and have lower
cost for this search compared to other forms, such as associations, foundations, etc.
2) To get into quality, expertise, and expert human resources easily.
3) Industrial cluster are activities that complement each other, and the
benefits and advantages received from the industrial cluster will cover all sides and
every step of the production process as well as increased value chain.
4) Entrepreneurs easily get into the system since the industrial cluster
is composed of related firms, related organizations, academic institutes, and research
institutes.
5) Exist innovation each development since the closeness between
entrepreneurs and customers through the production line assists in knowledge about
customers’ demands and the trend of customers’ demands. However, the important
thing is the linkage between producers, which will help to create efficient innovation
and establish new business.
6) Competition in the industrial cluster causes entrepreneurs to
develop efficiency and the produce quality products.
7) To promote the expansion of new businesses since the industrial
cluster identifies members’ responsibility follow to expert and experience. Therefore,
each firm can have a bigger chance to expand its business by learning from others.


32
2.4.3 The Built-in Industrial Cluster
The heart of the development of the industrial cluster is cooperation on the
competitive background. Cooperating on directions and goals, setting up strategies,
and exchanging information, resources, and knowledge among related parties will
increase the efficiency and productivity of the industrial cluster. Additionally, the
industrial cluster will help to establish the sharing of new knowledge since when any
of the entrepreneurs think of new innovation, the rest of the entrepreneurs can adjust
to that innovation and this will lead to promoting the development of competitive
ability in the economic system on an innovative foundation.
METI (2005a) had classified how industrial clusters emerge in two directions:
1) Private Initiative or Bottom-up Approach
Main firms within the same or related industries get together for
propelling development and creating the same understanding for being a group or an
industrial cluster. This kind of industrial cluster has to set up its objectives and
strategies for later implementation, and after that report their status and intentions to
the government for further cooperative activities.
2) Public Initiative or Top-down Approach
The government develops industrial clusters and implements promotion
and management by starting out by setting up a meeting for related industries and
inputs knowledge and lets them set up objectives and strategies. The government is
merely a facilitator and monitors them at a distance.

2.5 Framework of Industrial Cluster Policy

The METI (2005a) has mentioned that in order to enhance the national
economy, the cluster is a good policy. There are four components in making the policy a
success, as follows:

2.5.1 Policy Intent
In order for Thai industry to survive in increasingly intense international
competition and for the local economy to develop autonomously, it is important that
innovations be created and developed, not only in Bangkok but also throughout the


33
country, and that new industry and new business be created utilizing the industrial
resources of each region.
For this purpose, it is vital to develop a business environment to promote
innovations not by the vertical or one-sided relationship often seen in subcontract and
trade between affiliate companies, but by forming horizontal networks such as
industry-academia, industry-industry, and cross-industrial collaborations. These efforts
to create new industries are being actively developed overseas as industrial cluster
formation policy, while the Japanese government has started to deal with creating a
business environment. It is important to systematize of a business environment
immediately.
Judging from this situation, it is appropriate to define an industrial cluster “not
as a mere agglomeration of companies, etc. without interactions but as innovative
business environment where new business sharing management assets with each other
are created one after another through horizontal networks such as industry-academia-
government collaboration and collaboration between companies, and the resulting
state in which industry with comparative advantage plays a central part in promoting
industrial agglomeration” (METI, 2005b). This intent of industrial cluster policy can
be defined as the desire to form industry-academia-government networks and
industry-industry networks throughout our country for the purpose of forming
industrial clusters, and to create new industries and new businesses by promoting
regional innovations.

2.5.2 Policy Objective
In accordance with the policy intent mentioned above, it is important to set the
new objectives of industrial cluster policy and the role of the central government as
follows:
1) Development of Business Environment to Promote Innovation
In order to promote innovation with the “new fusion” of industry,
academia and government, business environments should be developed including
industry-government-academia collaboration systems and support systems in launching
business, new business development, business collaboration, and management
innovation.


34
2) Creation of New Business in Accordance with National Strategies
As an important field for national strategy, the development has begun
from certain regions. Having new development industries taking root in these regions
is also needed.
3) Synergistic effects with local industry promotion
Collaboration with local industry promotion policy is led mainly by the
region, aiming for independence of the local economy by endogenous development,
which is effective for the creation of new business and new industry. It also
contributes to local industry promotion and brings about a greater synergy between
the region and the central government.

2.5.3 Policy Schemes
Policy schemes are categorized as follows:
1) Organizational structure: Support for Network Formation
Providing financial support and contributing to personnel for large-
scale promotion, organizational structure leads to the formation of industry-academia-
government. A “Network where each face is visible” is the core of an industrial
cluster. Networking is also promoted by supporting activities at the regional base of
organizations and core industry supports organizations that would contribute to cluster
formation.
2) Management Structure: Support for Business Activities
Specific businesses based on industrial cluster formation activities are
provided business support. Specifically, the budget for SMEs and the budget for
science and technology promotion and other systems are widely and strategically
utilized in such business activities as cross-industrial collaboration, management
innovation, support for R&D, market cultivation, the launching of business, and
incubation.
3) Management Structure: Promotion of Collaboration with
Related Organizations
In financing, market cultivation, the fostering of human resources and
other cluster activities, and collaboration relationships are promoted with local
financial institutions, and distributive institutions such as major trading firms, and
educational institutions such as schools—all of this cooperation is necessary.


35
2.6 Key Success Factors

According to a study of concepts for cluster-identification with an application
to an alleged aeronautics cluster in Northern Germany in 2002 by Alf Erko Lublinski,
the results showed that the positive impact factors for the alleged aeronautic cluster
were R&D cooperation partners of aeronautic firms, suppliers of technologically
critical flying material for aeronautic firms, and inter-firm networks in terms of
generating labor market pooling.
Further, according to a study on cluster development in Hungary in 2005 by
Lis Ravn and Janne Wichard Petersen, the findings on the possible success factors in
cluster development in Hungary were as follows: 1) promoting innovation, including
to potential for environmental innovations; 2) policy-initiating established from an
already existing and relatively well functioning industry, providing a successful
cluster for automobiles since they indicated that it was difficult to build a cluster from
scratch; 3) the presence of a supply chain and opportunities for cooperation among the
various stages of the represented supply chain; 4) activities to support marketing and
capacity building; 5) related organizations and industries were likely to have a
positive effect on the innovation potential among cluster members; and 6) good
opportunity for research and development in terms of universities and specialized
educations in order to serve and respond to cluster problems.
Overall, the METI (2005a) and DIP (2007) have pointed out their opinions
regarding the factors that make the industrial cluster a successful policy, as follows:
1) Related parties of the industrial cluster must have understanding of
strategic directions, including collaborating for planning and agreeing with strategies
in order to create industrial cluster competitiveness.
2) Industrial clusters have to have main firms be the leader.
3) The industrial cluster must have deeply and sustainable interaction
between firms and related parties for exchanging knowledge and information and for
following progress.
4) The industrial cluster must have a cluster development agent
(CDA) or a person that has the duty of facilitating cooperation, meetings, managing,
etc., of the industrial cluster.


36
5) The industrial cluster must have a proper consultant.
6) Every party of the industrial cluster has to express an appropriate
role, for example, the government sector is on duty to support policies and
infrastructure in order to create a competitive atmosphere for the private sector, and
the private sector has the role to propel the industrial cluster to achieve its objectives,
and academic institutions, research institutions, and specialized institutions are the
main axle for developing technology, innovation, and knowledge for cluster members.













 
37

CHAPTER 3

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND PROPOSED
MODEL OF STUDY

The literature review in this chapter is related to implementation theories and
concepts from famous scholars, as well as related research about policy implementation.
A review of the literature serves the purpose of studying definitions and creating
conceptual frameworks in order to select clear dependent and independent variables,
as well as to study the causal relationships of the scope of certain elements, such as
the scope of the research, population, and framework, with correspondence to the
study. This chapter is divided into 4 main sections: 1) review of the literature on the
major factors affecting implementation of policy, 2) policy success or failure, 3) the
conceptual model of the study, and 4) variables and measurement of variables.

3.1 Review of Literature of the Major Factors Affecting Implementation
of Policy

The study focuses on public policy implementation related to the success of
industrial cluster implementation in Thailand and the assessment of the factors that
make policy successful. The term public policy refers to the way in which the
governmental approaches the goal of resolving or dealing with numerous concerned
areas such economic, social, environment, etc. (Nagel 1984: 3). There are various
definitions of policy implementation, conceptual framework theories, and definitions
of related research.

3.1.1 Definition of Policy Implementation
Among the important work on policy implementation is that of Pressman and
Wildavsky's implementation (1973: 8). Their work defines policy implementation as


38

a process of interaction between the setting of goals and actions in order to make sure
of the success of policy implementation.
Although, their work did not include a theoretical model of implementation, it
was a starting point for the field of implementation studies. In their work, there were
many important observations on implementation such as: 1) implementation should
not be divorced from policy and must not be conceived as a process that takes place
after the design of policy; 2) designers of policy must consider direct means for
achieving their end; 3) continuity of leadership is important to successful policy
implementation; and 4) simplicity in policies is much to be desired. Moreover, the
clear understanding of applying policy to implementation should be studied from the
point of view of conceptual framework, meaning, importance of the study, and other
beneficial factors. The researcher should provide examples regarding implementing
policy and giving definition of implementing policy from different perspectives.
These matters were important starters for the following research.
Williams (1971: 144) concluded that “implementation seeks to determine
whether an organization can bring together men and material in a cohesive
organizational unit and motivate them in such a way as to carry out the organization’s
stated objectives.”
Van Meter and Van Horn (1975) have defined policy implementation as
actions by public or private individuals (or groups) that are directed at the
achievement of objectives set forth in prior decision making. They pictured
implementation as a unidirectional process mandated by prior policy decisions. In
their analysis, there are six clusters of variables; namely, policy standards and
objectives, policy resources, international communication and enforcement activities,
characteristics of implementing agencies, economic, social, and political conditions,
and the disposition of implementers. Notice that Van Meter and Van Horn have given
importance to policy implementers, as their roles are crucial in shaping the policy
process.
Moreover, Van Meter and Van Horn (1975: 200-217) also mentioned that the
policy implementation process raises serious boundary problems. That is, it is difficult
to define the relevant j actors. Furthermore, many of the variables needed to complete
an implementation study are difficult to measure. As both scholars mentioned, a


39

comprehensive analysis of implementations requires that attention be given to
multiple actions over an extended period of time, thus involving an enormous outlay
of time and resources. Moreover, they stated that policy implementation encompasses
those actions by public and private individuals (or groups) that affect the achievement
of objectives set forth in prior policy decisions.
Bardach (1977), in his book The Implementation Game, has defined
implementation as the assembly process...[which involves]...putting the machine
together and making it run. In his analysis, those who attempt to put the implementation
machine together try to exercise control through bargaining, persuasion, and
maneuvering under conditions of uncertainty. Bardach also viewed that policy
implementation is part of the business of the political process. His model, like the
classical ones, uses the machine analogy to characterize the administration process.
Bardach's model therefore looked at players or stakes of the policy. In the
Implementation Game (1977), Bardach conceived policy implementation as a series
of game involving the efforts of numerous semiautonomous actors to protect their
interests and gain access to program element not under their control—all within the
face of considerable uncertainty and the context of general expectations that
something will be attempted consistent with the legal mandate.
Browne and Wildavsky (1984) viewed implementation as a process of mutual
adaptation in which policies and programs adapt to their environment and each alter
the other. Schneider (1982) mentioned that policy implementation is normally viewed
as a stage after policy formulation and before the reutilization of operations, activities
and tasks that are governed by the policy.
Pressman and Wildavsky (1973: 8) explained that policy implementation is a
process of interaction between the setting of goals and actions. They found that
proper implementation requires government officials to translate broad agreements
into specific decisions, despite the often wide range of participants and their generally
quite different perspectives. Thus, the degree to which policy goals are actually
achieved through specific decisions can provide an estimate of the implementation
actually achieved.




40

3.1.2 Criticism of Policy Implementation
Recently, policy implementation has been viewed as one of the most important
steps in policy success. In the past, policy implementation, as of the classical
viewpoints, was viewed as just an act of delivering a formulated policy. In the
classical view, an agent to carry out the policy was chosen by the policy maker
according to technical criteria and the agent then implemented specific instructions
according to the policy guidelines specified in the communication from the policy
maker (Nakamura and Smallwood, 1980). However, many of these classical model
assumptions have been criticized, as they were oversimplified and unrealistic.
However, it was not until the 1970s that policy implementation gained momentum
from a number of publications in this field.
During the 1930s, a classical model of public administration based on the
principle of scientific public management became widespread in the US. This
classical model excluded implementers from the process; as Smith (1973) argued,
there was an assumption that once a policy has been made the policy will be
implemented and the results of the policy will be near those expected by policy-
makers. The top-down command structure during this period minimized the role of
implementers.
In this classical model, implementation was viewed as the stage after the
policy decision, and the decision was made at the top and the agent that carried out
the policy was chosen by the policy maker. Moreover, specific instructions for
implementing the policy were given by the policy maker and the implementers had a
duty to carry out such instructions according to policy guidelines (Nakamura and
Smallwood, 1980).
A multiplicity of decision points, introducing overwhelming complexity of
joint action, stifles policy intent. Pressman and Wildavsky (1984) on directness and
simplicity were identified implementation as keys of a multiplicity of decision points,
introducing overwhelming complexity of joint action, and stifle policy intent as keys
to implementation.
In his analysis, those that attempted to put the implementation machine
together tried to exercise control through bargaining, persuasion, and maneuvering
under conditions of uncertainty. He, therefore, used game as a metaphor for the policy
process.


41

Van Meter and Van Horn (1975) concentrated on interorganizational
communications and enforcement activities related to policy. Van Horn (1979)
mentioned that the fundamental autonomy that state and local governments enjoy in
the federal system is the principal explanation for the minimal impact of public laws
and federal implementation agencies. Furthermore, the characteristics of implementing
agencies, predisposition of implementers, and resources were identified as critical.
Van Meter and Van Horn also argued that the implementation process depends
on the nature or type of policy. The authors classified policy using two characteristics:
the amount of charge involved, and the extent to which there is goal consensus among
the participants in the implementation process. A positive response will come from
the policy that requires little or incremental change from previous policy and requires
only a few changes in organization.
In their analysis, there are six clusters of variables; namely, policy standards
and objectives, policy resources, international communication and enforcement
activities, characteristics of implementing agencies, economic, social and political
conditions, the disposition of implementers. Van Meter and Van Horn have given
importance to the policy implementers, as their roles are crucial in shaping the policy
process. The details are as follows:
1) Policy Standards and Objectives
Policy implementation requires that goals and objectives be identified
and measured. These measured indicators will be assessed if the policy standard and
objectives are realized.
2) Policy Resources
Resources are necessary for running programs. These resources include
funds or other incentives in the programs that might encourage or facilitate effective
implementation.
3) Inter-organizational Communication and Enforcement Activities
As mention earlier, this framework focused on the interrelation
between the agencies involved implementation the policy, and the requirement of the
effective policy implementation regarding program standards and objectives have to
be understood by individual responsibility for their achievement. The standards and
objectives must be accurately communicated to the implementers. Moreover, power
or control over all agencies is important for policy implementation.


42

4) Characteristics of the Implementing Agencies
Van Meter and Van Horn studied both the components of agencies, the
formal structural features of the organization, and the informal attributes of their
personnel. Characteristics that may impinge on the organization’s capacity to implement
policy are, for example, competence and size of staff, degree of hierarchical control of
sub-unit decisions, and agency's political support.
5) Economic, Social, and Political Conditions
Conditions such as limitations in resources, changes in social/economic
conditions that affect the severity of problems, changes in government, and changes in
the opinion of politicians and interest groups can affect implementation.
6) The Disposition of Implementers
As argued by the authors, three elements of implementers response
may affect their willingness to carry out policy (and cause policy failure): 1) their
cognition (understanding) of policy directions, 2) their acceptance of the policy, and
3) the intensity of that response.
McLaughin (1975) identified the implementers closest to the action
and their immediate environment as crucial. Her model focused on the interpersonal
relationship between implementers and policy formulators as a key factor in policy
success. Her model interests in implementers receptivity or lack of receptivity when
policy changes. She concluded that the amount of interest, commitment, and support
evidenced by principal actors has a major influence on the prospects for success.
Libsky (1980) has identified front-line implementers or street-level
bureaucracy as the important determinants of policy implementation. Both the
compliance and ability of the street-level bureaucracy were emphasized in this model.
Sorg (1983) classified the important behaviors of implementers that have effects on
the success or failure of policy. Sorg's classification of two dimensions, compliance
and intention, have been used as criteria to determine types of implementers. These
two dimensions created four types of implementers; namely, intentional compliance,
unintentional non-compliance, unintentional compliance, and intentional non-
compliance. By integrating the work of Hall and Loucks on levels of the use of an
innovation, they use conformity criteria in their model. As the model, the implementers
can be classified also as those that implement the policy but do not conform to it and
to those who do not implement the policy and conform to it.


43

One of the most comprehensive works on the determinations of policy
success is from Mazmanian and Sabatier (1983). In their study, implementation is
also viewed an act of carrying out basic policy decision, usually made in a statute.
They mentioned that the policy decision identifies the problem to be addressed,
stipulates the objectives to be pursued, and structures the implementation process.
Moreover, in the case of a statue regulating private economy behavior, the
implementation process normally runs through a number of stages, beginning with the
passage of the basic statute, followed by the policy outputs of the implementing
agencies, the compliance of the target group with those decisions, the actual impacts
of those outputs, the perceived impacts of agency decisions, and important revisions
in the basic statute.
Mazmanian and Sabatier (1983) have identified seventeen independent
variables summarized under three headings: tractability of problem, the ability of
statute to structure implementation, and non-statutory variables. Their seventeen
independent variables can be classified in to three groups:
The first group of variables is tractability of the problem. This
group concerns the aspect of problems that affect the ability of government
institutions to achieve the statutory goal. The four variables in this group are as
follows:
7) Availability of Valid Technical Theory and Technology
The policy program assumes the modification of the target group
because the policy will ameliorate the problem. If there is a valid theory connecting
the behavioral change to problem amelioration, there will be more chance of the
policy being successful.
8) Diversity of Target Group Behavior or Diversity of Behavior
Being Regulated
Since the policy is viewed as a change in target group behavior,
the more diversity of behavior, the less probable of policy for success.
9) Target Group as a Percentage of Population
The reason here is same as for the above variable; thus, the smaller and
more definable the target group whose behavior needs to be changed, the more likely
the mobilization of political support is and thus more probability of the achievement
of statutory objectives.


44

10) Extent of Behavioral Change Required
In this variable, the more change required the more problems of
implementation exist.
The second group of variables is the ability of the statute to
structure implementation; those variables are as follows:
11) Validity of Causal Theory Underlying Statue
Two aspects are considered here. First is technical validity, which
refers to the relationship between target group behavior and the attainment of the
statutory objective. Second is implementation effectiveness, which refers to an ability
of implementing agencies to create a behavioral change in the target group.
12) Unambiguous Policy Directives
Policy should also contain unambiguous directives and provide for a
structured implementation process in order to maximize the likelihood that target
groups will perform as desired. Policy objectives should be precisely defined and
clearly prioritized.
13) Financial Resources
Money is necessary for both hiring staff and conducting the technical
analyses involved in the development of regulations, administration of permit
programs, and monitoring compliance.
14) Hierarchical Integration with and Among Implementing
Institutions
Coordination among the semi-autonomous agencies involved in the
implementation is also crucial for success. This means that the veto points should be
minimal and sanction/inducements should be provided to overcome resistance.
15) Decision-Rules of Implementing Agencies
According to Mazmanian and Sabatier’s notion of policy, “it will be
success in changing target group behavior if the decision rule of implementing is bias
toward the achievement of statutory objectives” and moreover, “a statute can be
assigned authority to make final decision, within implementing institutions to those
officials who likely to support statutory objectives.”



45

16) Recruitment of Implementing Officials
The policy will be more likely to succeed if the implementer not only
complies with but also commits to the policy goal. Thus, selecting the implementation
is one of the crucial keys of success.
17) Formal Access by Outsiders
Not only do we need implementing agencies and implementers who
bias statutory objectives, we need outsiders or policy beneficiaries to do the same
thing. By doing so, we need participation of these group of people.
The third group is comprised of the non-statutory variables
affecting implementation. Changes in socio-economic conditions and technology
can affect political support of programs and at the same time the support of the
general public, interest groups, and sovereigns.
18) Socio-Economic Conditions and Technology
Socio-economic conditions and technology can affect political support
and therefore affect policy implementation output. When an environment changes, the
importance of implementing policy may be reduced and so also public and politicians
support. Scare resources may be re-allocated elsewhere.
19) Media Attention to the Problems
The change in socio-economic conditions may also change the
perception of the mass media. When the mass media lost it interest in the issue, and
politicians as well as the public may lost their interest in the policy as well.
20) Public Support
Public support of the policy is one of the crucial elements for policy
success, as it influences politicians and implementing agencies.
21) Attitudes and Resources of Constituency Groups
There is a trend for the support of a program to decline over time as the
concerned problem. When this happens, resources may be reallocated to other
projects at the moment that seem more important, and as a result, the program will
fail.
22) Support from sovereigns
The sovereigns of the implementing agency are those institutions that
control its legal and financial resources. One difficulty in implementing inter-


46

government policy is that the implementing agencies are responsible to different
sovereigns who pursue different goals.
23) Commitment and Leadership Skill of Implementing Officials
This is one of the important keys for success in implementation—the
ability of implementers. Implementers must have a clear understanding of implementation
goals (including directions and the ranking of objectives in official preference) and
the ability to realize those preferences. Implementers also must commit themselves to
the success of policy. Moreover, leadership skill is important in implementing policy.

3.1.3 Models of Policy Implementation
Lester J. Bowman et al. (1987) have studied development of implementation
research and have classified it into four generations, namely: 1) case studies (1970-
1975), 2) policy implementation frameworks (1975-1980), 3) applications of the
frameworks (1980-1985), and 4) syntheses and revisions (1985-1987). Therefore, as
Bowman mentioned earlier, the model of policy implementation can classify into four
generations following.
1) Case Studies (1970-1975)

Figure 3.1 Van Meter and Van Horn’s Model: A Model of Inter-Governmental
Policy Implementation
Standards and 
Objectives
Resources
Policy 
Interorganizational 
Communication and 
Enforcement Activities 
Characteristics of the 
Implementing Agencies 
Economic, Social, and 
Political Condition 
The Deposition 
of Implementers 
 
 
 
Performance 
 


47

In the first generation, the model was mainly a “top-down” one. The
first “top-down” model was proposed with the Van Meter and Van Horn model in
1975. The details of this model were shown in figure 3.1 above. As seen, Van Meter
and Van Horn (1975: 200-217) indicated the results from a consideration of the
various incremental developments involved in the implementation process, such as
organizational changes, the development of organizational controls, the evolution of
organizational complexity, the effect of major reorganizations, the impact of judicial
decision, and the analysis of inter-governmental relations. Their research produced a
new theory of policy implementation, which was called A Model of Inter-government
Policy Implementation. They also developed a model of the policy implementation
process. The policy factors which they identified are as follows: 1) policy goals and
standards, 2) resources and inter-organizational communications, 3) enforcement
activities, 4) characteristics of implementing agencies, 5) prevailing economic, social,
and political conditions, and 6) the disposition of the implementing parties.
2) Policy Implementation Frameworks (1975-1980)
Berman et al. (1977) examined the factors which he considered to be
the most successful in policy implementation; the success of policy implementation of
any program could be measured by quantifying the degree of “goal fulfillment” and
the project attained—either by using the prevailing methodology or by estimating the
continuity, implementation methods, and awareness and experience of the target
group. Berman also stated that participation of stakeholders is an important factor in
the implementation of policy.
Athwell and Gerstein (1979) studied how the Methodone approach
operated in monopsonic situations and concluded that technical invalidity and theory
failure often led to policy implementation failure.
Another “top-down” models were developed by Sabatier and Mazmanian
by using the variables mentioned in the previous section of this paper. The model is
shown in figure 3.2 below. As per the model, Sabatier and Mazmanian (1980)
established a framework for another general model by identifying successful policy
implementation as a dependent variable. The tractability of the problem, the ability of
legislation to structure implementation, and the non-statutory variables affecting
implementation were synthesized into the following dependent variables: 1) policy


48

outputs of implementing agencies, 2) compliance with policy outputs by target
groups, 3) actual impacts of policy outputs, 4) perceived impacts of policy outputs,
and 5) major revision of the statue.

Figure 3.2 Sabatier and Mazmanian’s Model

Another top-down model was developed by C. Edward in 1980, where
the model identified four factors believed to affect policy implementation: 1)
communication, 2) resources; 3) dispositions of implementers, and 4) bureaucratic
structure. The model is shown in figure 3.3 below.





Tractability of Problem
1. Availability of Valid technical theory and Technology 
2. Diversity of target‐group behavior 
3. Target group as a percentage of population 
4. Extent of Behavioral change requires 
Ability of Statute to Structure Implementation
1. Clear and consistent objectives 
2. Incorporation of adequate causal theory 
3. Financial Resources 
4. Hierarchical integration with and among 
implementing institutions  
5. Decision‐rules of implementing agencies 
6. Recruitment of implementing official 
7. Formal access by outsiders 
Non‐statutory Variables Affecting Implementation 
1. Socioeconomic conditions and technology 
2. Media attention to the problem 
3. Public support 
4. Attitudes and resources of constituency groups 
5. Support from sovereigns 
6. Commitment and leadership skill of implementing 
officials 
Stages (Dependent Variables) in the Implantations Process 
Policy outputs of 
implementing 
agencies 
Compliance with 
policy outputs 
by target groups 
Actual impacts of 
policy outputs 
Perceived 
impacts of policy 
outputs 
Major 
revision in 
statue 
 


49


Communication
Bureaucratic
Structure
Implementation
Resources
Disposition
 













Figure 3.3 Edwards’s Model

3) Applications of the Frameworks (1980-1985)
Hambleton (1983) observed the effectiveness of policy implementation
according to the following methods: 1) the policy message needs to be clear and
consistent, 2) a multiplicity of actors will bring about different perspectives and
ideology, and 3) the availability of resources and political planning assistance is a
major determinant.
In Rural Development in Asia, Cheema and Rondinelli (1983), regarding
the establishing of the conceptual framework on an improvement of decentralization
program in the implementation process. They identified four factors which affect the
implementation of decentralization policies:
(1) Environmental Condition
Cheema and Rondinelli state that policies emerging from a specific
and complex socioeconomic and political environment would shape the substance of
policies, the pattern of the inter-organizational relationships involved, the characteristics of
implementing agencies, and the amount and type of resources available for carrying
out policy.



50

(2) Inter-Organizational Relationships and Linkages
The interaction and coordination of a large number of organizations at
different levels of government, the complementary actions by local, regional, and
national agencies, and the cooperation of non-government organization and other
groups of interest beneficiaries are required for the success of policy implementation.
However, the inter-organizational relationships and linkages to policy implementation
depend on the clarity and consistency of policy objectives.
(3) Resources for Policy and Program Implementation
The degree of financial, administrative, and technical support
provided will be a key effect on the success or failure of policies and programs. The
adequacy of budgetary allocations, timely availability of resources, and the level of
revenue and expenditure authority exercised at the local level will all significantly
influence implementation.
(4) Characteristics of implementing agencies
The determinants of the success of policy implementation are
comprised of the following factors: 1) the technical, managerial and political skills of
agency staff, 2) the capacity of agencies to coordinate, to control, and to integrate the
decisions of subunits, 3) the degree of political support from members of the national
political leadership and the bureaucracy, as well as from other organizations and
client group, 4) the nature and quality of internal communications, agencies’
relationships with their clients and supporters, 5) the effectiveness of linkages to both
private and voluntary organization, 6) the leadership style, 7) the commitment to
policy objectives, and 8) the location of the agency within the bureaucratic hierarchy.
Gunn and Hogwood (1984) have proposed four approaches to the
study of policy implementation: 1) a procedural and managerial approach with an
emphasis on control factors, 2) an examination of organizational structures, 3)
behavioral studies in relation to participants, 4) an examination of the participant to
understand the implementing authority on the policy.
4) Syntheses and Revisions (1985-1987)
In the last generation of implementation, as suggested by Bowman,
the synthesis and revision of the top-down and bottom-up approach was integrated by
several scholars, such as Coggin (1986), Wittrock and De Leon (1986), Bowman et al.


51

(1987), Van Horn (1987), and many others. One ambitious model was developed by
Sabatier in 1986. In this model Sabatier combined “bottom-up” unit of analysis (i.e. a
whole variety of public and private actors involved with policy problems) with the
“top-downers” concerns over the manner in which socioeconomic conditions and
legal instruments constitutes behavior.” Figure 3.4 below shows the Sabatier
integrated model.
















Figure 3.4 Sabatier’s Model

Voradej Chandarasorn (1993) has identified six policy implementation
models: 1) the Rational Model, 2) the Management Model, 3) the Organization
Development Model, 4) the Bureaucratic Processes Model, 5) the Political Model, and
6) the General Model.
(1) In the “Rational Model,” the organization operates as “rational
value maximizes” in order to achieve the target or goal. The rational model
emphasizes efficiency in planning and control. The assumption of this model is that a
successful program needs clear targets/objectives, proper job assignments to related
Relatively Stable System 
Parameters 
1. Basic attributes of the problem areas 
(good) 
2. Basic distribution of natural resources 
3. Fundamental socio‐cultural values and 
social structure 
4. Basic constitutional structure (rules)  
Events External to Subsystem 
1.  Changes in socio‐economic conditions   
      and technology 
2.  Changes in systematic governing  
      coalition 
3.  Policy decisions and impacts from  
      other systems 
 
 
Constrains 
and 
Resources 
of 
Subsystem 
Actions 
 
Policy Subsystem 
Coalition A    Coalition B 
a) Belief System      Policy        a) Belief System 
b) Resources           Brokers     b) Resources 
 
Strategy A Strategy B 
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
 
F
e
e
d
b
a
c
k
 
L
o
o
p
 
              Government 
Action Program (collective 
Choice Level) 
Policy Outputs  
(Operational Level) 
 
Policy Impact 
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
 
F
e
e
d
b
a
c
k
 
L
o
o
p
 


52

sub-divisions, work standard settings, evaluation systems and reward, and a
punishment system.


Figure 3.5 Rational Model

(2) The Management Model focuses on organizational performance.
The assumption is that successful implementation depends on the implementing
agency’s capability to perform according to the expected target. As proper
implementation requires the organization to be capable in terms of both administrative
and technical know-how, the organization must have a suitable implementation plan
and sufficient resources to accomplish the program. The variables for this model are
shown in figure 3.6 below.








Objective of 
Policy 
Work Standard
Reward and 
Punishment 
System
Mission setting 
and Job 
Assignment
Evaluation 
System 
 
 
Planning 
and Control 
Performance of 
Policy 
Implementation 
 


53










Figure 3.6 Management Model

(3) The Organizational Development model, on the other hand,
focuses on the participation of implementing agencies, under the assumption that
participation will create effective teamwork. Therefore, successful implementation is
the result of motivation, proper leadership, relationships and acceptance among
members, and participation and teamwork within the implementing agencies. The
organization development model requires psychology and sociology to improve the
relationship and cooperation of the teamwork; this is strongly related to efficiency in
the running of the organization.


Figure 3.7 Organizational Development Model
Leadership
Motivation
Teamwork 
Participation
Relationship and acceptance 
among member
Policy 
Implementation 
Performance 
 

Structure
Personnel
Budget
Place/Location
Tool and Equipment

Organization’s
Performance


Policy Implementation
Performance


54

(4) In the Bureaucratic Processes Model, it is believed that the
power of the organization is not at the “formal position” or the head of the
organization alone, but power is distributed throughout the organization. Therefore,
all members of the agency (including Libsky’s Street-level bureaucrats) have the
power to use their own judgment in delivering the program to policy customers.
Thus, failure of policy implementation is not solely the result of inefficient
administration, but also the result of the attitudes and actions of policy makers,
administrators, and staff at lower levels. In conclusion, successful implementation
depends on the attitude of policy makers as well as the ability of implementers to
provide proper services, combined with an adequate level of policy acceptance by
those persons actually responsible for carrying out policy.

Figure 3.8 Bureaucratic Process Model

(5) Voradej Chandarasorn has developed the Political Model from
the work of Pressman and Wildavsky (1979), Bardach (1977), and Sabatier and
Mazmanian (1980). This model assumes that performance of implementation depends
on the ability of the players and the relationship of the players to external factors.
Consensus and participation are difficult to achieve while conflict is common.
Implementation is therefore a matter of confrontation (between organizations),
conflict management, support seeking, advertisements/campaigns, and negotiation
from person to person, person to organization, and organization to organization.

Understanding Level 
of policy 
maker/project 
manage to real nature 
Acceptance Level to 
adopt policy into a 
daily job 
Policy 
Implementation 
Performance 


55















Figure 3.9 Political Model

(6) The last model, the General Model, was developed from the
work of Van Meter and Van Horn (1975). The framework of the general model
adopts many of the variables used in other models in order to further understand the
policy implementation process. The general model focuses on three main factors:
communication procedures, organization’s ability to implement policy, and the level
of support demonstrated by implementers. However, the large number of variables
tends to make the production of quantitative research difficult and the validity of
some variables can be difficult to ascertain.









Number of Involving
agencies
Negotiation Ability
Support from
- Media
- Politician
- Other Organization
- Influence Group
- Stakeholders
- Important Person
Personality
Knowledge
Status, Power
and Agency’s
resource
Policy Implementation
Performance

 


56






















Figure 3.10 General Model

3.2 Policy Success or Failure

Danziger Dutton and Kraemer (1980), in their study of automated information
in the policy process, mentioned that “given the seamless web of continuous
adjustment in both goals and activities in policy process, and given that ambiguity of
fully measuring the range of impacts attributable to any particular policy intervention
few polices could be characterized as completed success or failure.” Although,
Dutton, Danziger, and Kraemer have suggested that the outcomes of the policy are
Mode and 
Policy 
Objective 
Communication 
Procedures 
Enforcement 
Activity 
Characteristics of 
Implementing 
Organizations
Socio‐economic 
Condition 
Political Condition
Resources 
Support from 
Implementers 
Policy 
Implementation 
Performance


57

difficult to measure compared to the stated goals, it can be implied that the outcome
of policy was used as a measurement of success in the policy process.
Kerr (1976) identified three types of policy failures; namely, 1) implementation
failure, 2) instrumental failure, and 3) failure in normative Justification. In the first
type, Kerr stated that the policy that cannot be implemented cannot be a successful
one. The second type, instrumental failure, is the policy that does not fulfill its
purpose or purposes. In the last type of failure, normative justification, although the
policy can be successfully implemented and effective as an instrument for achieving
the agent’s policy, it can fail if it is not normatively justified.
Patton (1979) has distinguished the differences between outcome evaluation
and implementation evaluation. He suggested that “outcome evaluation is the
comparison of actual program outcomes with desired outcomes (goals)” and this type
of evaluation gives decision-makers very little information on which to act. He called
this type of evaluation the “Black Box” approach. On the other hand, the
implementation evaluation was aimed at gathering “implementation information” in
order to make sure that policy is being put into operation according to the design to
test the feasibility of policy. According to Patton’s study, implementation is to unlock
the black box. However, the study focuses on successful implementation and many
scholars have provided ideas for classifying how to claim that the policy is successful.
Berman et al. (1977) examined the factors which he considered most after the
success of policy implementation, observing that the success of any such program
could be measured by quantifying the degree of “goal fulfillment” or “the project
attained, either by using the prevailing methodology or by gauging the continuity,
implementation methods, or awareness and experience of the target group. In his
study, he expressed the opinion that participation by stakeholders is an important
factor in implementation of policy.
In his study, Patton argued that successful implementation is characterized as a
process of the adaptation of all idea to local conditions, organization dynamics, and
programmatic uncertainties. He also classified three types of implementation evaluation;
namely,


58

1) Effort evaluation focuses on documenting the quantity and quality of
program activities; if the program is relative inactive, it is unlikely to be very
effective.
2) Process evaluation focuses on the internal dynamics of a program in
attempt to understand its strength and weakness; this approach takes its name from
looking how a product or outcome is produced, i.e. it is an analysis of the processes
whereby a program produces the results it does.
3) The treatment specific approach involves identifying and measuring
precisely what it is about a program that is supposed to have an effect; in technical
terms, this means identifying independent variables that are expected to affect
outcomes (the dependent variables).
According to above scholar’s opinions, successful implementation can be
extended by fulfilling two criteria, effectiveness and efficiency, as discussed below.
1) Effectiveness
Van Meter and Van Horn (1975) claimed that effectiveness implementation
requires that program standards and objectives be understood by those individuals
responsible for the achievement of policy. In the study, effectiveness will be defined
as the ability to achieve the objective of policy, measure, planning, and project. Using
effectiveness criteria can be carried out by making a comparison between “actual
results” and planned results.” Effectiveness criteria can be measured by two methods:
(1) The goal-attainment approach is a method of measuring the
outcome at the end of project implementation, not measuring between each step of
implementation. In the study, effectiveness refers to the evaluation of pursuing the
industrial cluster project or goal attainment approach; this is derived from DIP’s term
of reference (TOR), as illustrated in the diagram below.


59


















Figure 3.11 Effectiveness of Industrial Cluster Project on Goal - Attainment Approach

Effectiveness of Industrial
Cluster Project (Goal –
Attainment Approach)
To promote and stimulate domestic economics, in the short-
run, including income distribution, employment, reduction of
wasting foreign currency, and building up revenue in both the
government and private sector in the long-run
To promote the chain of the industrial cluster in the production
and service sector composed of domestic enterprises, financial
institutes, academic institutes, and related government
organizations in order to be ready support each other and to be
an instrument to create a competitive system for continuous
and sustainable industry growth
To help entrepreneurs realize and agree with the importance of the
industrial c cluster among Thai entrepreneurs or Thai and foreign
entrepreneurs
 
To create knowledge, expertise, vision stimulation, and
potential development for SME entrepreneur competition
Realize and agree on the
importance of the industrial
cluster
Clarity of industrial cluster
Coverage of the structure of
industrial cluster
Cluster members participate in
implementing activities
Activities that cluster members
implement for promoting the
development of the industrial
cluster
Income generation
Reduction of cost
Perceive and understand the
increment of cluster members
Perceive and understand the
increment of cluster members
5
9
 


60

(2) The systems approach is the consideration of a project as to whether
the outcome coverage is from the beginning to the end (Santiwong, 1991). In the
study, effectiveness is the evaluation of the benefit of the industrial cluster or system
approach.





















61



















Figure 3.12 Effectiveness of Industrial Cluster Project on System Approach

Effectiveness on the
benefit for being
Industrial Cluster 
(System Approach) 
To be competitors
within industrial cluster 
To develop innovative
ability 
To expand new
business  
To get in to related
information  
To receive extra benefit
for being industrial
cluster 
To get in to quality
human resource cluster 
To promote business of
each others  
Proportion that enterprises cooperate to do raw material
procurement
Proportion that enterprises cooperate to recruit skill labors
Proportion that enterprises cooperate in producing new
products
Proportion that enterprises consult each others
Proportion that enterprises distribute information
Proportion that enterprises cooperate in developing
technology
Proportion that enterprises cooperate in developing
competitive potential
Proportion that enterprises cooperate for sharing purchasing
order
6
1
62
2) Efficiency
In terms of it meaning in economics, efficiency is the ability to obtain
maximum output under given cost or given output with minimum cost. Measuring
efficiency can be accomplished by considering whether the output of actual
implementation and the budget have been used, so that the project results in the
highest outcome compared to the budget, i.e. that project is the most efficient. In the
study, efficiency criteria are measured by the benefit-cost ratio (B/C ratio). This is the
ratio of the benefits of a project, expressed in monetary terms, relative to their costs,
also expressed in monetary terms. All benefits and costs should be expressed in
discounted present values. If the B/C Ratio is equal to or greater than 1, it indicates
that benefit from investment is equal or greater than cost.

B/C =
=
Note: B/C = Benefit-Cost Ratio
PVB = Present value of benefit
PVC = Present value of cost
= Benefit at year t
Ct = Cost at year t
r = Discounted Rate
t = Year (from 0,1,2,…)
n = Duration of project 

Figure 3.13 B/C Ratio
Source: Zerbe and Dively, 1994. 

3) Relationship between effectiveness and efficiency
Schermerhorn (1989) explains the relationship between effectiveness and
efficiency for management administration according to the following:
(1) If a project has effectiveness and lacks efficiency it means that project
utilizes resources without efficiency.
63


(2) If a project lacks both effectiveness and efficiency it means that the
project has not fulfilled its objective and uses resources without efficiency.
(3) If a project has both effectiveness and efficiency it means that the
project has achieved the objective and uses resources efficiently.
Kast and Rosenzweig (1970) stated that measuring the success of a project
relates to the measurement of both effectiveness and efficiency.

3.3 Previous Study on Policy Implementation

In the “Major Factors Affecting Industrial Hazardous Waste Policy
Implementation in Central Thailand,” Thawilwade Bureekul (1998) suggested that
policy implementation effectiveness is determined by two directed variables; namely,
implementing agency capacity and willingness to comply. There are six variables
indirectly affecting implementation effectiveness regarding the “implementing agency
capacity” variable. These six variables are: 1) government policy commitment and
continuity; 2) policy standards and objectives; 3) policy resources; 4) implementing
agency incentives; 5) coordination among implementing agencies; and 6) external
support. Also, through variable “willingness to comply,” there are four variables that
indirectly affect implementation effectiveness: 1) industrial sector environmental
awareness; 2) environmental conservation incentives for the industrial sector; 3)
environmental conservation expenses for the industrial sector; and 4) external factors.
Yinyon Senitwong Na Ayudhya (2001) has studied the “major factor influencing
the health city policy implementation.” An objective of this research was to discover
the factors influencing the effectiveness of implementation of vended food sanitation
improvement policy. Two dependent variables, the increase in the number of
complying venders and customers satisfied with the food, were included in this study.
The findings indicated that the number complying as affected by effective
enforcement, which in turn was affected by three factors: 1) leader commitment and
continuity and 2) implementing agency’s capacity and media support. The satisfaction
of customers, on the other hand, was affected by the degree of vender compliance
with the code of practice. The satisfaction variables have five variables namely, 1)
vender understanding, 2) vender incentive for compliance, 3) vender perception of
64


compliance cost, 4) vender perception of official enforcement, and 5) perception of
how unofficial sanction indirectly affected the customer satisfaction variable.
Rumjuan Benjasiri (2002) conducted a study called “The Implementation of
Public Sector Standard Management System and Outcomes (PSO): A case study of
the Community Development Department.” The objective of the study was to find
the outcomes that the Community Development Department had achieved from the
intervention of the Public Sector Standard Management System and Outcomes
implementation and to identify the major factors that contributed to the
implementation and their effect. On the implementation side, Benjasiri used the
variable satisfaction of implementation result to measure PSO implementation. The
research found that there were seven factors that contributed to PSO implementation:
1) executive support; 2) PSO perception (perception of officials of PSO attributes); 3)
PSO itself (clear instructions and clear PSO standards); 4) participative management
strategies (level of participation of implementers); 5) learning organization
characteristics; 6) innovation performance experience (involvement of officials in
programs/projects related to innovation or new ideas in the past); and 7) level of
regulation in work.
In 2003, Homchuenchom conducted a study called “Election Policy in
Thailand: Major Factor Affecting the Effectiveness of Policy Implementation.” In her
study, she specified that there were differences in the major factors affecting election
policy implementation of two groups: the Provincial Election Commission (PEC) and
the Constituency Election Commission (CEC). For the PEC group, there were four
factors that affected election policy implementation. These were: 1) the adequacy of
needed resources that the PEC perceived; 2) the cooperation between PEC and other
related implementing agencies; 3) PEC willingness to comply with the policy; and 4)
PEC compliance ability. For the CEC group there were six factors, which were: 1)
CEC perception of the commitment of the Election Commission of Thailand to policy
commitment; 2) CEC understanding and acceptance of the policy context; 3) the
adequacy of needed resources that the CEC perceives; 4) the cooperation between the
CEC and other related implementing agencies; 5) CEC’s willingness to comply with
the policy; and 6) CEC’s policy compliance ability.

65


3.4 Conceptual Model of the Study

By looking at previous studies by scholars in the field of policy
implementation such as those by Mazmanian, Sabatier, McLauglin, Van Meter and
Van Horn, and many others, it can be seen that not all the models from mentioned
scholars are applicable to the present study due to different situations and
environments. Nevertheless, a new integrated model was developed and considered
for suitability for this study. An integrated model or a conceptual model was
developed from the important variables relevant to the circumstances of policy
implementation with regard to industrial cluster in Central Thailand. As indicated in
previous studies, there are three stages of variables: formulation stage variables,
implementation stage variables, and evaluation stage variables. However, in the
present study, the emphasis is on the implementation stage variable, as the researcher
believes that the variables in this group directly affect the success or failure of policy,
while the variables in the other stages may indirectly affect policy success through the
implementation variable. The implementation stage variables, are composed of the
variables of three levels, the organization level, the implementer level, and policy
customers. However, the study will focus on the policy customer level of analysis or
the enterprise level of analysis. This model will be tested using both qualitative and
quantitative methods.












66







Figure 3.14 The Purposed Model for Analysis

3.5 Research Hypotheses

Hypothesis I
The major factors that determine the failure or successes of industrial
cluster implementation are: 1) the participation of stakeholders, 2) communication,
3) management ability, 4) perceived support, 5) quality of project, 6) clarity of
goals, and 7) the ability of cluster members and policy implementers.
1.1 The greater the participation of stakeholders, the greater the chances of
policy to be a success.
1.2 The more communication there is, the more chances there are of the
policy to be a success.
1.3 Greater management ability is positively related to successful implementation.
1.4 More perceived support leads to more chances of the policy being
successful.
1.5 The quality of project has a positive relationship with successful
implementation.
1.6 The greater the clarity of goals, the more successful the implementation
will be.
H 1.4
H 1.5
H 1.6
H 1.7
H 3.2
H 3.1
H 3.3
 
Successful
1.Effectiveness
- Industrial Cluster
Project (Goal-
Attainment
Approach and
System Approach)

2.Efficiency
- Benefit Cost Ratio
(B/C)
 
Quality of Project
Communication
Participation of
Stakeholders
Perceived Support
Management
Ability
Ability of Cluster
Members and Policy
Implementers
Clarity of Goals
H 1.1
H 1.3
H 1.2 H 2.1
67


1.7 Strong ability of cluster members and policy implementers creates a high
probability of successful implementation.

Hypothesis 2
The major factors affecting communication are management ability and
the quality of the administration system of involved agencies.
2.1 Better management ability means better communication for information
transferred to involved stakeholders.

Hypothesis 3
The major factors that determine the quality of a program are: 1) level of
perceived support, 2) level of clarity of goals, and 3) the level of ability of cluster
members and policy implementers (to translate policy into action plans or
programs, including ability to manage problems).
3.1 The higher perceived support results, the greater the quality of the
program.
3.2 The level of clarity of goals is positively related to the level of quality of
the program.
3.3 The ability of cluster members and policy implementers and the quality of
a program have a positively relationship.

3.6 Variables and Measurement of Variables

3.6.1 Dependent Variables
The dependent variable is "successful implementation.” The operational
definitions are as follows:
1) Effectiveness of policy implementation includes the degree to
which the policy can reach its targeted goal, the improvement of the industrial cluster,
and the degree to which the stakeholders of this policy are satisfied with policy
outcomes. Stakeholders range from implementers to consultants and the industrial
cluster itself.
68


2) Efficiency of policy implementation is calculated from the benefit
cost ratio: B/C ratio. If the B/C ratio is greater than 1, it indicates that the policy
provides more benefit than cost.

3.6.2 Independent Variables
The independent variables are comprised of 5 factors, as discussed below:
1) Participation of stakeholders
The participation of stakeholders is vital for every policy to be
successful. Voradej Chandarasorn (1993) has indicated in his organization development
model that the interlink of participations and other needs variables (leadership,
motivation, teamwork, and human relations & acceptance) represents the performance
of policy implementation. This implies that the participation of stakeholders is an
important factor in successful implementation.
2) Management Ability
The ability of managing organizations is largely determined by the
extent to which these organizations are willing to implement policy. However,
successful implementation is also a function of the implementing organization’s
ability to do what is required of it (Van Meter and Van Horn, 1975). Management
ability refers to the level of implementing units capable of applying measures and
regulations in the real practice of implementing industrial cluster projects efficiently.
3) Perceived Support
Industrial cluster implementation requires a considerable body of
policy resources in order to facilitate effective administration. Van Meter and Van
Horn (1975) noted that resources require government funds and other financial
sources supplied to the policy program in order to encourage or facilitate effective
implementation. Adequate financing is vital to the effectiveness of policy implementation
because funds are needed for the purchase of necessary materials and equipment,
administrative processes, in order to acquire technology, and for other purposes.
Indeed, adequate funding is one of the major contributing factors to project success.
In conclusion, perceived support, such as financial funds, human
resources, and other support needs play an influential role in successful implementation.

69


4) Clarity of Goals
The meaning of goals here can be elaborated to include “policy
standards” and “policy goals.” It has been found that the clarity of policy standards
and policy goals can determine the outcome of a project’s performance. According to
Van Meter and Van Horn (1975), policy standards and policy goals should be both
self-evident and easily measurable. Public policy implementation is influenced by
both policy standards and policy goals communicated to implementers. Also, these
policy standards and policy goals are facilitated to monitor and to enforce.
Interestingly, whether implementers respond to policy depends on their respective
understanding, perceptions, and interpretations. Moreover, the clarity of goals in both
terms, policy standards and policy goals, can be a good means of establishing and
maintaining a reliable foundation for relations between stakeholders from every unit.
Policy should also contain unambiguous directives and provide for a
structure implementation process in order to maximize the likelihood that target
groups will perform as desired (Sabatier and Mazmanian: 1979, 481-504). Policy
goals should be precisely defined and clearly prioritized. Clear and precise objectives
are essential for providing implementers not only with unambiguous directives but
also for project evaluation.
Van Meter and Van Horn (1975) stated that effective implementation
requires that project standards and goals be understood by the individuals responsible
for the achievement of the project. Also, Rivlin (1971: 131) added more explanation
for policy standards and goals and made them more understandable and adaptable,
policy needed to be capable for the real practice, being touchable, specific, stable, and
certain policy. In sum, the clarity of goals is significant from the beginning of a
project to its successful implementation at the end.
5) Ability of Cluster Members and Policy Implementers
The phrase ability of cluster members and policy implementers refers
to the ability of these individuals to overcome pressures from within or outside their
industrial cluster, aimed at delaying or compromising fundamental policy objectives.
The lack of the ability of cluster members and policy implementers results the
ineffectiveness on the implementation of industrial cluster policy, and unexpected
solutions of the project. Therefore, effective implementation requires a minimum
70


level of administrative ability, which is often lacking in many developing countries
(Sabatier and Mazmanian, 1983).
In conclusion, the greater the ability of cluster members and policy
implementers is, the more effective policy implementation can be.
The variables below have an indirect effect on “successful implementation.”
which are the dependent variables. The intervening variables are listed below:
1) Communication
Van Meter and Van Horn (1975) discovered five major characteristics
(competence and size of agency staff, degree of hierarchical control, vitality of the
organization, openness of communications, and informal and formal linkages with
policy makers and policy enforcement bodies) which can impinge on an organization’s
capacity to implement policy. They suggest that openness of communications and
informal and formal linkages with policy makers and policy enforcement bodies are
required for effective implementation of an organization’s policy.
As many organizations are involved with policy implementation within
the industrial cluster in Thailand, the coordination between these organizations is very
important for the policy implementation process. For example, communication within
and between organizations is generally quite complex and usually it is difficult to
transmit messages vertically within the organization or horizontally from one
organization to another. Similarly, some communicators can distort a message, either
intentionally or unintentionally, and authorities can also communicate inconsistent
interpretations of the standards and objectives of a policy. Moreover, conflicts within
policy interpretations sometimes happen, making it more difficult for implementers to
carry out policy as intended. Therefore proper inter-agency coordination is important
in order to ensure that the right information and signals are both sent and received.
In conclusion, the inter-communication among related stakeholders,
including policy authorities, policy implementers, cluster members, and other relevant
organizations or units, is very important for making the cluster implementation
process go smoothly. Also, the useful and routine information about enhancing the
capacity of the industrial cluster project is required for successful implementation.
Also, effective and efficient inter-communication arises from the ability of the
management of the project.
71


2) Quality of a Project
The quality of project is determined by the levels of the industrial
cluster structure completed and the satisfaction of stakeholders with the industrial
cluster project. In order to create a project that is high quality, less complexity of
implementation is required. Elmore (1979) has stressed that the complexity of a
function of both the absolute number of actors and the number of transactions
between them are required to accomplish a given task. The number of transactions
was shown not to be a product of the overall size of the government concerned, but
rather of the interdependence of the actors or agents within it. The major theme of his
paper was that the over-complexity of the current implementation process necessitates
a substantial rethinking of legislative and administrative controls and the development
of new approaches to the implementation process.
Elmore (1979) found that the quality of project is applicable to
measuring the quality of project since the completed structure of the industrial cluster
as it appears in cluster mapping does not seem to be complex, but the components of
it have what the industrial cluster should have in order to accomplish the goals of the
implementing cluster. Also, the evaluation of the project will represent the extent to
which stakeholders are satisfied with the project in terms of goals, standards,
procedures, and the hierarchy of the government unit that takes care of the industrial
cluster.







72

CHAPTER 4

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The dissertation is aimed at figuring out the factors that lead to the success of
the industrial cluster implementation in Thailand. The researcher has reviewed
related literature for influential factors, including the concept of the cluster and
implementation models. The survey covered all industrial clusters in budget year
2007, including industrial clusters located in different areas in Thailand, such as the
north, the north-east, the central area, the west and east, the south, and Bangkok. The
outcome of the dissertation will reveal the characteristics of industrial clusters and
will answer questions concerning the factors that lead to the successful
implementation of the industrial clusters implemented by the Department of Industrial
Promotion (DIP).

4.1 Research Design

Kumar (1966: 88) introduced his methodology of research design by dividing
it into three groups: 1) experimental design 2) quasi or semi-experimental design, and
3) non-experimental design. This dissertation will use secondary data from the DIP.
According to Kumar’s introduction to research design classification, using three
groups, the non-experimental design was chosen as the methodology for collecting
data by the DIP. The non-experimental design is a way to conduct survey research
using random questionnaires with the target population. Currently, the survey research
is very popular for social science study (Babbie, 2004: 101-102) and has been applied
for testing the causal relationships between independent variables and the dependent
variable.    A non-experimental design studies actual natural phenomena without any
attempt to enforce independent variables that reflect the dependent variable (Suchitra
Punyaratabandhu, 2003: 65). Therefore, while collecting data, the DIP collectors


73

never used any treatments or activities intervening during the period of collecting the
data. The secondary data used for this study were direct data from the original source.
Questionnaires belonging to the DIP were set up to serve the purpose of being a DIP
database for the industrial cluster project and were selected to answer questions from
various sources (management level, Bureau of the Budget, Thailand, Office of Public
Sector Development Commission, Thailand, etc.) and to be a retrieving resource for
creating industrial cluster articles in quarterly and annually DIP work reports.
After reviewing the literature related to the industrial cluster concept and
implementation policy, the author found that it was interested and wants to have a
better understanding about the policy implementation of industrial clusters was worth
pursing. Prior to conducting the research, the researcher had to have a clear
understanding of the type of research, the purpose of the study, research methodology,
time period, and the technique for collecting the data. Neuman (2003) has suggested
the dimensions that researchers should consider before conducting research.

Table 4.1 The Dimensions of Social Research from a Quantitative Approach

Dimensions of Research Major Types
1. How research is used Basic, applied
2. Purpose of the study Exploratory, descriptive, explanatory
3. The way time enters in Cross-sectional, longitudinal (time
series, panel, cohort)
4. Technique for collecting
quantitative data
Experiments, surveys, content
analysis, existing statistics studies

Source: Neuman, 2003.

In the table above, Neuman explains that quantitative research is about the
design of research conduction and measurement since it is based upon a deductive
approach which focuses on detailed planning before conducting the research.




74

Table 4.2 Characteristics of Quantitative Research

Characteristics of Quantitative Research
The Purpose To test the hypothesis that the researcher begins
with
Concepts The form of distinct variables
Measurements Systematical creation before data collection and
standardization
Types of Data Numbers of precise measurement
Types of Theory Largely causal and deductive method
Sample Size Large sample size
Inquiry Narrow in terms of extent inquiry; however,
assembles are required information from a large
number of respondents
Procedures Standard methods and replication are assumed
Topics Aims at explaining prevalence, incidence, extent,
nature of issues, opinions and attitudes, and
discovering regularities and formulating theories
Methods of Analysis By using statistics, tables, charts, and explaining
causal relationships from hypotheses?

Source: Kumar, 1997; Neuman, 2003.

Thus, in the study, the author applies the quantitative research method based
on the resource-based theory and measurement is systematic. Moreover, the data
analysis is based on the use of statistics, table, charts, and explaining causal
relationships and hypotheses.
Referring to Babbie (2004), conducting a research has three purposes.
First, regarding exploration, the largest contribution of social science research
is to explore interesting topics and to start new and familiar topics. Additionally,
exploratory research is conducted for three reasons: 1) to satisfy the researcher’s
curiosity and desire for better understanding of the topic, 2) to test the feasibility of


75

conducting a more careful study, and 3) to develop methods to be applied to future
study.
Second, regarding description, social science research must explain what the
researcher observes in situations, activities, and events.
Third, regarding the purpose of explaining, this purpose refers to explaining
any phenomenon or event. This purpose, in other words, is to explain the question
“why.”
The author further reviews the feasible and potential ways to conduct
systematic research. The author found that there are seven steps in the research
sequence for the research process (Gill and Johnson, 1991).


Figure 4.1 Basic Research Process
Source: Gill and Johnson, 1991.
Identify Broad Area 
Select Research Topic 
Decide Approach 
Formulate Plan 
Collect Information 
Analyze Data 
Present Findings 


76

As figure 4.1 shows, the basic research process assists in understanding the
steps in implementing a project. By applying the above basic research processes, the
study uses a quantitative method to be the main methodology to figure out the
appropriate causal relationships. However, the author has added interviews using
secondary data from DIP questionnaires in order to gather information concerning the
implementation process, management system, and views of implementing industrial
cluster policy. The data received from the questionnaires revealed the relationships of
each variable and outcomes of the policy, such as production cost, sales and profit,
change in market share, etc.
This study is aimed at ascertaining the factors that lead to the success of the
industrial cluster implemented by the DIP. The methodology for pursuing the second
objective was accomplished through the quantitative method and SPSS and AMOS
were applied in order to analyze the variables that lead to the effectiveness and
efficiency of the project since effectiveness and efficiency are two factors that
determine the successful implementation of the industrial cluster by the DIP. The
variables that were used are the following: 1) participation of stakeholders, 2)
management ability, 3) perceived support, 4) clarity of goals, and 5) ability of cluster
members and policy implementers; there were two intervening variables: 1)
communication, and 2) quality of project.
After discovering the factors that lead to successful implementation, the author
needed to make a careful analysis of the data results and to review the answered
questionnaires, as well as consider the actual experience regarding the topic, including
what the author and others observed. The careful analysis made reasonable suggestions for
improving the implementation of the industrial cluster project to relevant parties such
as DIP officials (policy implementers) and enterprises (policy customers).

4.2 Unit of Analysis

Babbie (2004) has mentioned that most units of analysis for the social sciences
are at the individual level and observations are made to describe the characteristics of
a number of cluster members, for example, career, sex, age, and attitude. The unit of
analysis is one of the vital parts in the dissertation since it constitutes the entities or


77

objects of the study. The unit of analysis can be stated as the “level of analysis.
However, the unit of analysis can be classified into 7 levels: 1) individual unit, 2)
group level, 3) organization unit, 4) institutional unit, 5) spatial unit, 6) societal unit,
and 7) aggregate unit. However, for this study, the individual unit or enterprise level
will be applied.

4.3 Target Population and Sampling

1) Target Population
Target population for the dissertation will be enterprises that joined the
industrial cluster policy (policy outcome) in budget year 2007, totaling 22 industrial
cluster sand 440 enterprises since every industrial cluster has 20 enterprises.
2) Sampling Design
In the study, the population was 440 enterprises but the sample size was 220
enterprises. The expected and replied questionnaires totaled 10 enterprises for each
industrial cluster. Anderson and Gerbing (1988) suggest that the minimum sample
size should be 150 in order to create a structural equation model (SEM), while Hair et al.
(2010) suggests that at least a 200 sample size can be considered reasonable for doing
the structural equation modeling (SEM). Therefore, 220 enterprises passed the criteria
of both mentioned scholars.

4.4 Data Collection Method

Secondary data were taken into consideration for analysis in the dissertation
from the industrial cluster project implemented by the DIP. Data were collected by
randomly distributing questionnaires to 10 enterprises for each industrial cluster in
fiscal year 2007. The period for collecting data was approximately 4 months. The
two periods for collection the data are as follows: The first period was from June to
July, 2007. The second period was from October to November, 2007.
The reason why the data collection periods were separated into two periods is
because the DIP believed that the first period was for the purpose of monitoring how
the project ran, and the second period was set to serve the purpose of evaluating the


78

industrial cluster project after the budget year ended in September. The data
collection was done in order to obtain information on how enterprises had performed
during the project and what they had obtained for participating in it.
The data collectors mostly were DIP officials that were responsible for taking
care of that cluster. Only few data collectors were hired by the DIP. Most
questionnaires were handed to the enterprises directly; however, the DIP randomly
distributed them. Each industrial cluster as required to return 10 replied questionnaires
from enterprises so the total number of questionnaires was 220. Finally, the DIP
received 220 questionnaires without any missing. The study used selected questions
from the questionnaires received from the DIP database.
The characteristics of the selected questionnaires are as follows:
1) The selected questionnaires as seen in appendix A are composed of 10
parts. The first part concerned general information about the subjects. The 2
nd
to the
10
th
parts were related to questionnaires to test for statistical analysis. The constructs
of 9 parts (2
nd
to the 10
th
part) were ordered as follows: participation of stakeholders,
management ability, perceived support, clarity of goals, ability of cluster members
and policy implementers, communication, quality of project, effectiveness, and
efficiency.
2) Babbie (2004) recommended that items should be weighted equally. Thus,
the scales of the selected questionnaires that were used for the study are as follows:
(1) 10-point Likert scale from level 1 to level 10
(2) 5-point Likert scale from level 0 to level 5 and from level 1 to level 5
(3) 3-point Likert scale from level 1 to level 3
(4) Decision to say “yes” if the questionnaire respondent agreed with a
question or “no” if the questionnaire respondent did not agree with a question.
For the Likert scale, level 1 to any level meant strongly disagree to strongly
agree, and from very little to a lot. Level 0 meant no opinion.

4.5 Method of Data Analysis

The study will be use descriptive statistics to analyze the data and structural
equation modeling (SEM). For the study, SPSS version 16.0 and AMOS version 6.0
were used in the data processing and analysis as follows:


79

1) Cross-tabulation was used to determine if there were other factors
characteristics of each respondent, for example, sex, education level, career, duration
of work experience, etc.
2) The general data including participation of stakeholders, management
ability, perceived support, clarity of goals, ability of cluster members and policy
implementers, communication, quality of project, and successful implementation of
industrial cluster implementation in Thailand by statistical data, i.e. frequency
distribution, percentage, and elaborating the analysis in each category was analyzed.
3) Very little data from the DIP database was collected in terms of “group
level” or “cluster level.” DIP collectors asked few questions of the cluster
representative so there were 22 answers, each answer representing the answer for that
cluster or 20 enterprises. However, in the study, all questionnaires were collected
from 220 respondents. The author solved this problem by using the principle of the
“disaggregate method.” The disaggregate method is a regression that adjusts higher
levels of a variable to a lower level of variable, and the result will cause every
variable is in the same level of variable (Numchai Suppareakchaisakul, 2009). In the
study, the author adjusted 22 units of variables (a cluster representative) to 220 units
of variables (10 enterprises per cluster and 220 enterprises in total). An example of
research that used the principle of the “disaggregate method” is the case of the study
on the Promotion of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors for Human Resource
Sustainable Development in the Organization by Sudayu Teeravanittrakul (2004). In
his study, he measured “organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB)” on two levels: 1) the
school level, and 2) the teacher level. Teeravanittrakul used the principle of a
“disaggregate regression” to solve the problem of unequal population. The principle
of disaggregate regression can be done with Excel or with the Hierarchical Linear
Model (HLM). However, for this study, the author used excel to disaggregate the
data.
4) For the missing answers, the principle of “replacing missing value by
series mean” was applied to solve the problem. Replacing missing value is a way to
approximate missing values to make complete information in order to be beneficial
for analyzing all data and bringing about a true result. This methodology is much
better than leaving that missing data and doing an analysis (Kanlaya Vanichbuncha,
2007).


80

5) In case of different constructing scales, the author could not gather
different constructing scales for different questions together. Z-Score will always
have a mean = 0 and SD = 1. The author applied the concept of “standardized data”
by Z-score to form questions for analysis (Kanlaya Vanichbuncha, 2004) as see in the
formula below:


S
X Xi
Z

=

Figure 4.2 Z-Score
Source: Kanlaya Vanichbuncha, 2004.

6) Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was used to bring intercorrelated
variables together. The goal of the EFA is to reduce the dimensionality of the original
space and to give an interpretation to the new space, spanned by a reduced number of
new dimensions which are supposed to underline to the old ones or to explain the
variance in the observed variables in terms of underlying latent factors. Therefore,
factor analysis offers the possibility of using the output in subsequent analyses
(Rietveld and Van Hout, 1993: 254; Habing, 2003: 2). Hair et al. (2010) also mentions
that the EFA is used to explore data and offers information about how many factors
are necessary to be the best for the represented data. In addition, all measured or
observable variables are related to every factor according to the value of a factor
loading estimate.
7) Hair et al. (2010) discusses the idea that structural equation modeling
(SEM) is a multivariate technique combining dimensions of factor analysis and
multiple regressions. SEM allows the researcher to simultaneously study a series of
interrelated dependence relationships among the measures or observed variables and
latent or construct variables, as well as the relationships among many latent
constructs. SEM has three main characteristics that are different from other
multivariate techniques, as follows:
(1) SEM can provide simultaneous estimation of multiple and interrelated
dependent relationships.


81

(2) SEM has the ability to represent unobserved or latent concepts in the
relationships as well as to be able to solve measurement error in the estimation
process.
(3) SEM is one model that can explain all relationships.
Sabherwal and Becerra (2003) have stated that “it (SEM) operates the
constructs of interest with a measurement instrument, and tests the fit of the model to
the obtained measurement data with hypothesis as a model.”
Ullman (2006) states that SEM can be seen as a collection of statistical
techniques by allowing a set of relations between one or more independent and
dependent variables to be analyzed at a time. SEM can be stated in words, such as
“causal modeling,” “causal analysis,” “simultaneous equation modeling,” and
“analysis of covariance structures.”
Thus, SEM has been one of the most popular model to be used in research
analysis with many advantages and has outperformed traditional multiple regression
analysis. SEM provides a mechanism for accounting error in measuring variables.
For this reason, SEM was considered appropriate for this study. In SEM, constructs
or latent variables are shown in circles and measured or observed variables are shown
in rectangles.
For the main structural equation, Hair et al. (2010) states that in structural
equation models, equations are used to explain the observed and latent variables. In a
regression analysis, the objective is to create a model that predicts a single dependent
variable; however, in a structural equation model, it can predict and explain a set of
endogenous constructs and also needs equations that explain endogenous constructs
(η) in addition to explaining the observed variables. SEM and regression analysis
have similar equations in elaborating the dependent variable (y) with multiple
independent variables (X1, X2, X3,…, Xn).


82





Figure 4.3 Path Diagram of a Simple Structure Theory
Note: ζ is a construct associated with measured with measured x variables.
rrepresents the endogenous constructs in a model and can be both
sides of the equation because endogenous constructs can be dependent
on one another.
is a path representing the factor loading between a latent construct and a
measure x variable.
is a path representing the factor loading between a latent construct and a
measure y variable.
is the error term associated with an estimation, measured x variables.
is the error term associated with an estimation, measured y variables.
is a path representing a causal relationship (regression coefficient) from
a ζ to an η .
β is a path that represents a causal relationship (regression coefficient) from
a η construct to another η construct.
1
ζ 1
η
2
X
1
X  
3
X  
1
y  
2
y  
3
y  
1
δ  
2
δ  
3
δ  
1
ε  
2
ε  
3
ε  
1 1
, X
λ  
3 1
, X
λ
2
,1 x
λ  
1
ζ  
1 1
, Y
λ 3 1
, Y
λ
2
,1 y
λ  
1,1
γ
η   η  
x
λ  
y
λ
δ  
ε  
1
γ  


83



Figure 4.4 Path Diagram of a Complex Structural Model

The structural equation can be illustrated as


B
η
η ξ ξ = + Γ +


Β represents the parameter efficient linking endogenous with other
endogenous constructs.
Γ represents the corresponding matrix of parameter coefficient linking the
exogenous constructs (η ) with the endogenous constructs (η ).
ζ represents the error in the prediction of η .

Hayduk, Cummings, Boadu, Pazdeka-Robinson and Boulianne (2007) state
that the structural equation model expresses theory-based causal connections between
the latent and related observed or measured variables. The model’s parameters
indicate an indicator variance/covariance matrix which is possible for data variance/
1,1
γ
1,3
γ
1,2
γ
2,1
β
1
ζ  
2
ζ  
3
ζ  
1
η  
2
η  


84

covariance matrix. The similarity or dissimilarity of those variance/covariance matrices is
shown the likelihood of observing the data covariance matrix in that model as well as
having causal estimates, comprised of the population from the collected data. Thus,
the model shows that the covariance matrix could be the population covariance matrix
if the model fit well with the data.
Regarding types of constructs, Petter, and Straub (2007) state that the
relationships between measures and latent constructs need to be considered while
using SEM. There are two types: formative and reflective. The two types should be
identified in the research to present the relationship between those measures and the
latent constructs. According to Edwards and Bagozzi (2000), measured indicators are
observable. Quantifiable scores are obtained from self-reports, interviews, and
observations that are needed to study constructs. Quantifiable scores are abstractions
and describe the phenomenon or event of theoretical interest in a research. However,
in social science, constructs are used to describe observable phenomena such as
population performance and attitude. Additionally, Petter and Straub (2007) point out
that indicators used for a study are unobservable or latent variables, and those
indicators are claimed as “reflective indicators” or “effect indicators.” Those
indicators can be seen in a reflective model. On the other hand, regarding constructs
consisting of “causal indicators” or “measure indicators,” and disturbance term, those
constructs are called “formative constructs” or “composite variables.” In the
meantime, those measures or indicators that determine a construct are called “causal
indicator” or “formative indicator.” When constructing a structural model, if all
constructs in the model are reflective, the model is called a “reflective model,” but if
at least one construct is formative, the model will be called a “formative model.” for
this reason, internal consistency is very important for the reflective construct;
therefore, Cronbach’s alpha or other reliability measures can be applied to ensure that
the measures are reliable (Bollen and Lennox, 1991). The difference between the
reflective and formative model can be seen in the arrow’s direction. For a reflective
model, η will be shown as causing indicators, but for the formative model, η will be
shown as being caused by indicators, as illustrated in figure 4.5 below.η


85


Figure 4.5 Formative and Reflective Models
Note: while
i
Y and
i
X = item scores / observations
η = endogenous construct or latent construct

i
ε = measurement error for indicator i
ζ = a disturbance term

To apply SEM for analyzing the study of the successful implementation of
industrial cluster implementation in Thailand is to test the model whether it follows to
assumptions with empirical data. The researcher’s assumptions were the relationships
between analyzed variables with a clear framework and theory. The objective was to
check whether the data were identical to the relationships according to the theory.
The SEM as applied to evaluate the correctness of the model built by the researcher.
The measure comprised 2 parts:. 1) the Overall Model Fit Measure and 2) the
Component Fit Measure (Viratchai, 1994: 53 - 55). The measures were used for the
model development. In the study, the criteria for model fit measure are described as
follows:
1) For the Overall Model Fit Measure, the statistics were applied as
follows:
Formative Model Reflective Model 
η  
η  
1
ζ
1
ε  
2
ε  
3
ε  
1
Y  
2
Y
3
Y  
1
X
2
X
3
X


86

(1) Chi-square Statistic was applied to test whether the covariance
matrices of the population and the expected covariance matrices were different
(Bollen, 1989: 263), with Type I Error at the statistically significant level of 0.05. If
the chi-square statistic was not significant at this level, the covariance matrices of the
population and the evaluated covariance matrices were indifferent. It was summarized
that the model fit the empirical data.
(2) The Fit Index represents the goodness of fit between the model
and the empirical data, i.e. the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) the Adjust Goodness of
Fit Index (AGFI), the Normal Fit Index (NFI), and the Incremental Fit Index (IFI).
The value was ranked between 0 - 1. A value higher than 0.90 meant that the model
fit the empirical data (Arbuckle, 1995: 529). A value near 1 meant that the model
mostly fit to the empirical data (Bollen, 1989: 270). The Comparative Fit Index (CFI)
was between 0 – 1, provided that CFI near 1 meant that the model fit the empirical data.
(3) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) was
developed since chi-square depended on the sample size (n) per Degree of Freedom
(df). Higher numbers of parameters made the Chi-square lower, resulting insignificant
testing results. RMSEA represents unfitness between model and covariance matrices
of the population. The accepted RMSEA should be lower than 0.05 (Brown and
Cudeek, 1993: 141 - 162) but not higher than 0.08. RMSEA = 0 means an exact fit
(Arbuckle, 1995: 523).
(4) Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) measures residual average
from a comparison between the variances and covariance matrices of the population
variable and measure. The index works well if all observed variables are standard
variables. A value near 1 means that the model fits the empirical data (Bollen, 1989:
257 - 258).
(5) The Chi-square statistic comparing the tested model and the
independent model with the saturated model (CMIN/DF) was used to compare the
model fit with the value of CMIN/DF was lower than 2, meaning that the model fit
the empirical data. (Carmines and McIver, 1981: 80).
2) In the Component Fit Measure after the Overall Model Fit
Measure, the important factor to be measured was the accuracy and reasonability of


87

results for each part. With this measure, it was found whether the model of each
relationship between variables exactly fit he empirical data. In this research, 3 groups
of parameters were considered as follows:
(1) The standard error should be low. Interpretation whether the
standard error was high or low was based on the significance level of the parameter.
If the parameter as significant, the standard error was low. If the parameter as
insignificant, the standard error was high and the model was not good (Viratchai
1999: 53). For the error estimated by the Lisrel Model, the OLS will be accurate if
most observed variables of the model are normally distributed (Joreskog and Sorbom,
1993: 59).
(2) The value of the Square Multiple Correlation (R
2
) or Coefficient
of Determination of Observed variables) ranges between 0 to 1. High value means
high validity of the model (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1993: 26; Viratchai, 1999: 59). The
Lisrel Model expands 40 percent of the variable variance considered to be good and
acceptable (Saris and Strenkhorst, 1984: 282).

4.6 Operationalization of Variables

The operationalization of variables is the process of defining variables as
tangible factors in order to make them more measurable. The table below illustrates
how the author operationalized the construct or variables, and the table demonstrates
the operationalization of each variable.




88

Table 4.3 Definitions and Operationalization of Variables

Variables Definitions Operationalization References Questionnaire
Section
1. Participation of
stakeholders



The term refers to
stakeholders being
willing to comply with
industrial cluster project.
In addition, stakeholders
demonstrate continuity
and consistency.
Degree to which
stakeholders participate in
initiative and implemented
processes

Degree to which there is
internal coordination of the
project

Degree to which level of
intended activities has been
implemented

Voradej Chandarasorn
(1993)

Horowitz (1996)

METI (2005a)

Browne and Wildavsky
(1984)
Berman, et al (1977)
No. 1 – 16




No. 17



No. 18
2. Management
ability

The term refers to
applying
measures/regulations
efficiently.
Degree of ability of budget
management by Department
of Industrial Promotion
(DIP)
Bardach (1977)

Edward (1980)
No. 19



8
8



89

Table 4.3 (Continued)


Variables Definitions Operationalization References Questionnaire
Section
Degree of clarity of
hierarchical control

Degree of responsibility for
work assignment

Degree of management
ability of Department of
Industrial Promotion (DIP)
in order to encourage internal
cooperation for running
industrial cluster project

No. 20


No. 21


No. 22

Degree of success of
implementing activities as
yearly plan
No. 23 - 49
8
9



90

Table 4.3 (Continued)


Variables Definitions Operationalization References Questionnaire
Section
3. Perceived
Support

The term refers to the
financial, administrative,
and resource support
available for
implementing agencies
for the purpose of
fulfilling the industrial
cluster project.
Degree to which level of
allocation budget is
sufficient for project
administration

Degree to which numbers of
assigned government
officials are sufficient for
project administration

Degree to which numbers of
office instruments are
sufficient for project
administration


Van Meter and Van Horn
(1975)



Mazmanian and Sabatier
(1983)
No. 50




No. 51




No. 52
9
0



91

Table 4.3 (Continued)


Variables Definitions Operationalization References Questionnaire
Section
4. Clarity of Goal The term means that
policy standards and
objectives are clear and
measurable. The
existence of clear,
measurable, policy
standards and objectives
can greatly assist
implementers in the task
of translating policy
standards and objectives
for effective and efficient
projects.
Degree of clarity and
understanding of industrial
cluster development

Degree to which cluster
members understand project
objectives, implementation
processes, and project
outcomes

Degree to which cluster
members evaluate the clarity
of the industrial cluster
project by observing
implementation in various
activities
Van Meter and Van Horn
(1975)


No. 53



No. 54 – 56





No. 57 - 60


9
1



92

Table 4.3 (Continued)


Variables Definitions Operationalization References Questionnaire
Section
5. Ability of
cluster
members and
policy
implementers

The term refers to ability
and cognition regarding
the project as well as
being able to adjust
procedures to obtain
maximum benefit for the
project.
Degree of ability and
cognition in industrial cluster


Bowman and Lester (1990)
NESDB (2003)
No. 61 – 62



Degree of ability to apply
information for
implementation of industrial
cluster project

Degree of quality of cluster
development agents in
playing their role



No. 61 – 62




No. 63
No. 64 – 76

9
2



93

Table 4.3 (Continued)


Variables Definitions Operationalization References Questionnaire
Section
6. Communication The term refers to inter-
organizational
communications between
implementing units and
cluster members. The
definition extends to the
Degree of level of received
information from related
units in Ministry of Industry
(MOI)


Benson (1975)

Hoffman (1982)

Bogo and Globerman (1995)

No. 77





giving and receiving of
information, advice, and
assistance.


Degree of level of received
information from public and
private organizations

Degree of exchanging
information among cluster
members

Edward (1980)

McLaughin (1975)



Nakamura and Smallwood
(1980)


No. 78



No. 79 - 82
9
3



94

Table 4.3 (Continued)


Variables Definitions Operationalization References Questionnaire
Section
7. Quality of
project
The term refers to the
completed composition
of stakeholders and level
of satisfaction with the
project by policy
customers.
Degree of the concentration
of industrial cluster

Degree of the quickness of
forming industrial cluster

Degree of satisfaction with
the service of DIP officials

Degree of satisfaction with
the service of project’s
consultancy

Voradej Chandarasorn
(1993)

McLauglin (1975)
No. 83


No. 84


No. 85 – 128


No. 129 – 145
8. Effectiveness The term refers to which
policy achieved its
intended goal with
respect to the benefit of
Degree of considering
industrial cluster as
important and beneficial

Pressman and Wildavsky
(1973)


No. 146 – 15



9
4



95

Table 4.3 (Continued)


Variables Definitions Operationalization References Questionnaire
Section
any given policy. In
addition, effectiveness
can be claimed as a set of
actions taken by
stakeholders to compel or
encourage compliance.
Degree of the success in
doing various activities

Degree of clarity of forming
industrial cluster
Van Meter and Van Horn
(1975)

Tientenberg (1992)

Patton (1979)

Berman, et al (1977)
No. 151


No. 152
9. Efficiency The term refers to the
ability to obtain
maximum output under a
given cost or given
output with minimum
cost.
Measuring by benefit-cost
ratio (BCR)
Zerbe and Dively (1994)

Patton (1979)
Part 10
9
5

96
The steps of the design of the present research appear in figure 4.6 below.
Such steps are vital for researchers in order to follow what they intend to do in the
research.



In summary, this chapter explains in detail the research process, including
the population, the data collection method, and the statistical methodology for
data analysis. The research methodology selected to be used is very important
since the appropriate methodology will lead to obtaining a reliable outcome.




Selected Questionnaires
Reliability Analysis
Content Validity
Fit Indices Assessment
Research Results
Interpretations and Conclusion
Data pass criteria
Figure 4.6 Steps in Research Design

CHAPTER 5

DATA ANALYSIS

The details in this chapter represent the survey results and general qualifications of
the target population. The study comprises descriptive data and data analysis in order
to express the results of the research in each indicator/variable as well as the causal
relationships following the hypotheses. The results of reasonable data analysis will
help the author make a powerful conclusion for the study.

5.1 Results of Descriptive Statistics

Table 5.1 General Information on Enterprises

Items Frequency Percentage
Years of established enterprises
1943 - 1947 1 0.45
1948 - 1952 1 0.45
1953 - 1957 6 2.73
1958 - 1962 1 0.45
1963 - 1967 6 2.73
1968 - 1972 5 2.27
1973 - 1977 7 3.18
1978 - 1982 12 5.45
1983 - 1987 18 8.18
1988 - 1992 23 10.45
1993 - 1997 44 20.00
1998 - 2002 50 22.73
2003 - 2007 46 20.91
Total 220 100.00

98
Table 5.1 (Continued)

Items Frequency Percentage
Form of Commercial Registration
Individual 94 42.73
Partnership 28 12.73
Company Limited 59 26.82
Others 37 16.82
Total 220 100.00
Investment Characteristics
All Thai investment 218 99.09
Joint Investment between Thais and foreigners 2 0.91
Total 220 100.00
Tentative Selling Volume
Increasing 87 39.55
Stable 57 25.91
Decreasing 76 34.55
Total 220 100.00
Tentative of Profit Volume
Increasing 66 30.00
Stable 56 25.45
Decreasing 98 44.55
Items Frequency Percentage
Total 220 100.00

Table 5.1 above illustrate the statistical data in 5 categories: years of
established enterprises, form of commercial registration, investment characteristics,
tentative selling volume, and tentative profit volume as detailed below.
1) Years of established enterprises
As shown in table 5.1, in 2007, enterprises that joined industrial cluster
projects started their business from 1943 to 2007 and there was a big difference in
years of establishment. The enterprises that had the longest and shortest establishment

99
were 64 years and 1 year, respectively. The years 1998 to 2002 exhibited the highest
number of enterprises starting their business, accounting for 22.73 percent.
2) Form of Commercial Registration
In 2007, most enterprises registered as individuals, at 42.73 percent. The
second type of commercial registration was the company limited, at 26.82 percent;
16.82 percent registered as others, such as the agricultural group, the house wife
group, OTOP, the textile group, etc.; the least commercial registrations signed up as
partnerships, for 12.73 percent.
3) Investment Characteristics
Most investments were from Thai citizens, equal to 99.09 percent. Only two
industrial clusters (0.91 percent) had joint ventures with foreigners; those two
industrial clusters: Processed Oranges in Chiangmai Province (joint venture with
Myanmar) and Chonburi Automotive / Machinery Parts in Chonburi Province (joint
venture with the Japanese and the Taiwanese).
4) Tentative Selling Volume
Most enterprises believed that they should have higher selling volume (39.55
percent) due to an expanded production line, receiving orders from new customers,
correcting production and marketing plans, and their products becoming more
familiar in their customers’ eyes. However, 34.55 percent thought that they should
have a lower selling volume because of slow economic growth and lack of political
confidence.
5) Tentative Profit Volume
Forty-four point fifty-five percent had the idea that they should have lower
profit due to the higher cost of raw materials and because product prices were
competitive, enterprises could not increase their prices if they still wanted to be in the
market. However, some enterprises thought that they should have a stable profit
(25.45 percent) since they were in a situation of “low cost and high profit” or “high
cost and low profit,” as illustrated in table 5.1 above.





100
Table 5.2 Establishment of Industrial Clusters

Sources of Establishment Frequency Percentage
Cluster members/enterprises 4 18.2
Private organizations 3 13.6
Representative of people in that area 1 4.6
DIP 21 95.5
Other government units 2 9.1

Source: DIP, 2007.
Note: The respondents were from government officials that are responsible for those
industrial cluster. Sources of establishment of industrial clusters could be
from more than one source; therefore, one respondent can answer more than
one source of establishment.

From table 5.2 above, it can be seen that most industrial clusters developed by
the DIP were initiated by the DIP, at 95.5 percent. However, there were some
industrial clusters where the establishers did not come only from the DIP, as the
following details below indicate (table 5.3).

Table 5.3 Establishing Units of Industrial Clusters

No. Industrial Clusters Province Establishers
1 Gems and Jewelry

Kanchanaburi
Province
- DIP
- Provincial Office,
Kanchanaburi Province
2 Processing Oranges Chiangmai Province - German Technical
Cooperation
3 Processing Longan Chiangmai Province - German Technical
Cooperation
4 Mulberry Paper Chiangmai Province - German Technical
Cooperation

101
Table 5.3 (Continued)

No. Industrial Clusters Province Establishers
5 Textiles Chiangmai Province - German Technical
Cooperation
6 Engines

Phitsanulok Province

- DIP
- The Federation of Thai
Industries, Phitsanulok
Chapter
7 Rice Processing

Pichit Province

- DIP
- Pichit Chamber of
Commerce
- The Federation of Thai
Industries, Pichit Chapter
- Office of Agriculture, Pichit
Provice
- Northern Industrial Estate
(Pichit)
- Community of Rice Mill,
Pichit Province
8 Silk Products

Khonkaen Province

- DIP
- JICA
9 Suphanburi Food
Industry

Suphanburi Province

- DIP
- The Federation of Thai
Industries, Suphanburi
Chapter
- Food Processing
Enterprises in Suphanburi
Province
10 Chonburi Automotive
/ Machinery Parts
Chonburi Province

- DIP
- JICA

102
Table 5.3 (Continued)

No. Industrial Clusters Province Establishers
11 Eastern Parawood
Products

Chonburi Province

- DIP
- Parawood Product
Enterprises in Suphanburi
Province
12 Parawood

Suratthani Province

- DIP
- JICA

Table 5.4 Summary of Obstacles to Implementing Industrial Clusters in
Fiscal Year 2007

Obstacles Frequency Percentage
1. Budget and administrative expenditures 8 7.6
2. Time-duration of implementing industrial
cluster project
9 8.6
3. Implementation of government officials who
are responsible for the project
15 14.3
4. Implementation of consultants who are
responsible for the industrial cluster project
8 7.6
5. Cooperation of related organizations 10 9.5
6. Characteristics of industrial cluster 4 3.8
7. Cluster members/enterprises 51 48.6
7.1 Attitude of cluster members who
participated in the project
6 5.7
7.2 Cooperation of cluster members/enterprises 28 26.7
7.3 Knowledge and understanding of cluster
members/enterprises
8 7.6
7.4 Demand of cluster members/enterprises 2 1.9
7.5 Business characteristics of cluster members 7 6.7
Total 105 100

103
Following table 5.4 , the summary of each obstacle is presented below.
1) Budget and administrative expenditures
It was found that the provided budget from the DIP was limited and
insufficient so that the cluster members/enterprises could not do all of the activities
that they intended. The cluster members/enterprises had to help sequence activities
by priority. Moreover, the provided budget for each cluster was of the same amount.
For some clusters and cluster members/enterprises located at a far distance, DIP
officials did not have sufficient budget for transportation costs in order to take care of
them.
2) Time-duration of implementing industrial cluster project
Since the duration of implementing a project was set in a fiscal year, it caused
the actual implementation of the project to be less than 1 year. The result was that
DIP officials did not have enough time to manage the implementation of the project well.
3) Implementation of government officials that were responsible for the
project
The problems that were found for this obstacle were:
(1) The announcements of activities by DIP officials were mostly late and
had almost reached the deadline. Therefore, cluster members/enterprises did not have
enough time to clear out their own business in order to be able to join activities.
(2) Some industrial clusters hired consultants to run the project, and this
caused some cluster members/enterprises to not know where the implemented budgets
really came from, the DIP or from consultants.
4) Implementation of consultants that are responsible for the project
Industrial cluster plans mostly are of long duration project. But, in reality,
consultants have to rush to implement a project due to the budget management plans
of the DIP which indicate when payment has to be reimbursed. This can cause
consultants to not have enough time to run a project.
5) Cooperation of related organizations
The concept of the industrial cluster is a very new fashion in many related
organizations, and sometimes the DIP faces difficulties in asking for their cooperation
since some related organizations consider that the cluster concept is not a beneficial
policy.

104
6) Characteristics of the industrial cluster
According to cluster mapping, the components of the cluster are composed of
supply chain and industries from upstream to downstream, but in reality, these
components do not have all of the completed components as stated. Most common
problems for cluster members/enterprises are to seek new market channels, but DIP
activities have not served their need regarding market opportunity.
7) Cluster members/enterprises
(1) Attitude of cluster members that participated in the industrial
cluster project
Many cluster members/enterprises believed that to participate in the
industrial cluster project could make them face disadvantages so they were not willing
to open what they considered to be a secret.
(2) Cooperation of cluster members/enterprises
Most cluster members/enterprises were SMEs. They had to run their own
businesses so they did not have time to join the project.
(3) Knowledge and understanding of cluster members/enterprises
Some cluster members/enterprises lacked understanding of the cluster
concept. They did not see the benefits of the project, so they did not totally corporate
in implementing it.
(4) Demand of cluster members/enterprises
Cluster members/enterprises are composed of different businesses so that
the cluster activities were difficult to serve their needs since their interests were not in
common.
(5) Business characteristics of cluster members/enterprises
Some cluster members/enterprises lacked the financial capital necessary to
run their business. The DIP provided a good deal of trainings to supplement cluster
ability such as potential enhancement and increasing productivities. However, those
cluster members/enterprises could not apply what they had trained to real practice due
to insufficient budget.
In addition, according to the questionnaires, it can be adapted and able to
identify key success factors of 22 industrial clusters by grouping them into 7 groups
of industry, as Thailand Standard Industrial Classification (TSIC-2001), as follows:

105
1) The Agricultural group comprises the processing of Oranges and the
processing Longan in Chiangmai province, and Rice Processing in Pichit province,
Phitsanulok province, Supahnburi province, and Udornthani province. The key
success factors were as follows:
(1) To promote the industrial cluster by continuously creating innovation
in research and development and technological transfer among cluster members.
(2) To develop a public relationship system by setting up a centralized
network for transferring and exchanging information in order to receive up-to-date
information and to quickly exchange information.
(3) To continue cluster activities for the purpose of strengthening
cooperation among cluster members.
(4) To develop labor skill for increasing knowledge and expertise in
everyday work.
(5) To cooperation in reducing production costs such as sharing orders of
raw material and increasing production potential.
(6) To seek product standard approval in order to create reliability of
demanders.
(7) To create a market channel domestically and internationally.
2) The food group comprises the Processing of Pig Products in Nakornratchasima
province, at the Suphanburi Food Industry in Suphanburi province, and the Processing
of Seafood in Nakornsithammarat province. The key success factors were as follows:
(1) To promote and to create a market channel.
(2) To develop public relationships through an information system in
order to receive useful information and to be a channel for market distribution.
(3) To continue activities to motivate strong relationships among cluster
members.
(4) To promote and develop the research and development of industrial
cluster in order to receive proper technology for increasing their productivity.
(5) To cooperate in reducing production costs such as sharing orders of
raw materials and increasing production potential.
(6) To receive product standardization for exporting.
(7) To enhance human development.

106

3) The textile group comprises Silk Products in Khonkaen province, Textiles
in Chiangmai province, and Silk Products Ubon in Ubonratchathani province. The
key success factors were as follows:
(1) To promote and to create a domestic and international market channel
by developing design and market research in order to serve the demand of buyers and
by putting cluster products on a worldwide electronic system in order to seek new
market channel sand to obtain international customers.
(2) To promote innovation and technological transfer.
(3) To continue creating activities for building close relationships among
cluster members.
(4) To receive the certification of product standardization for exporting
from reliable standardization agencies.
(5) To develop human resources regarding creating knowledge about the
industrial cluster and developing business administration.
4) The Parawood group comprises Eastern Parawood products in Chonburi
province and Parawood in Suratthani province.
(1) To create a linkage of the raw material dimension and technological
transfer between the parawood sector and its products.
(2) To develop skillful labor for knowledge and expertise in doing good work.
(3) To create a market channel and to increase the efficiency of product
distribution.
(4) To promote newly designed products and to register those products
for having the protection of intellectual property to patents in order to avoid the
imitation.
5) The Ceramic group comprises only a Ceramic cluster in Lampang province.
The key success factors were as follows:
(1) To create a new market channel and to develop public relationships.
(2) To promote the skill of labor for increasing knowledge and expertise.
(3) To develop product standardization in order to meet international
standards.
(4) To create new product design.

107
6) The Engine group comprises Chonburi Automotive/Machinery Parts in
Chonburi province, and Engine in Phitsanulok province. The key success factors
were as follows:
(1) To promote innovation and technological transfer.
(2) To promote the skill of labor for increasing knowledge and expertise.
(3) To cooperate in decreasing production costs.
(4) To create a new market channels.
7) The furniture and accessories group comprises furniture, leather, 1
st

craft Bangkok in Bangkok and suburban areas, and mulberry paper in Chiangmai
province. The key success factors were as follows:
(1) To promote and to create a domestic and international market channel
in both the academic and distributed market.
(2) To develop public relationships through an information system.
(3) To promote and to create new product design.

5.2 Statistical Testing

A model for the successful implementation of industrial cluster implementation in
Thailand has been conducted in order to study the casual relationships which affect
successful implementation by focusing on the following factors: participation of
stakeholders (PS), management ability (MA), perceived support (SUP), clarity of
goals (CG), ability of cluster members and policy implementers (ACP), communication
(COM), and quality of program (QP) with successful implementation (SI) of
industrial cluster implementation in Thailand as follows.
In this dissertation, the analysis of the successful implementation of industrial
cluster implementation in Thailand uses the Analysis of Moment Structure for
Research (AMOS) version 6.0 in order to test the model assumptions with empirical
data. The dissertation applies the structural equation model (SEM) to study
measurement and latent constructs following many researchers (Petter and Straub,
2007). In order to test the model by using the SEM, the author has integrated the
following details.

108
The dissertation was assessed by using both “reliability” and “validity.”
Reliability was related to the consistency of the results obtained from the measuring
instrument in the dissertation. If the instrument for measuring was gathered by
questionnaires, then the questions should obtain the same answer each time they are
asked. In addition, the questions in the questionnaire correspondent to reliability
should be simple, clear words and easy to understand in order to obtain the same
results on different occasions (Finn, 2000).

5.2.1 Reliability Analysis
In the dissertation, the author has tested 220 sets of questionnaires for
reliability analysis. According to Hair et al. (2010), reliability is an indicator that
shows convergence validity. High reliability expresses the idea that internal validity
exists and the measures can represent the same latent construct. Acceptable reliability
must have a Cronbach alpha coefficient (α) equal to or greater than 0.70 (Nunnally,
1978: 245), (Cronbach, 1990: 204). The following is the reliability formula.


2
1
2
1
1
Y i
K
i
X
K
K
δ
α
δ
=
⎛ ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
= −

⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠


Figure 5.1 Cronbach Alpha Coefficient (α )
Note: K = the number of components (K-items or testlets)
2
X
δ = the variance of the observed total test scores
2
Yi
δ = the variance of component i for the current sample of persons

For the dissertation, the results of the reliability analysis are shown in the table
below.




109
Table 5.5 Factors and Reliability Analysis (Cronbach’s Alpha)

Factors Numbers of Items Cronbach’s Alpha
Participation of Stakeholders 47 0.7795
Management Ability 31 0.9208
Perceived Support 5 0.7712
Clarity of Goal 10 0.7547
Ability of Cluster Members and
Policy Implementers
16 0.9184
Communication 6 0.7758
Quality of program 64 0.9940
Successful Implementation 13 0.8455

According to the Cronbach’s reliability test as it appears in the above table,
the results are as follows: participation of stakeholders (0.7795), management ability
(0.9208), perceived support (0.7712), clarity of goal (0.7547), ability of cluster
members and policy implementers (0.9184), communication (0.7758), quality of
program (0.9940), successful implementation (0.8455). The Cronbach’s alpha of
those factors passed the suggestion from Hair et al. (2010) since the lowest reliability
was 0.7547 (clarity of goal) and the highest reliability was 0.9940 (quality of
program).

5.2.2 Validity
1) Content Validity
Validity is a measurable instrument and there are various components
of validity. To notice from the distinction between “internal” validity and “external”
validity, internal validity refers to the comparative differences that cause the given
effect in the dissertation. In addition, external validity refers to the extent to which
the results of the research can be generalized. Thus, validity is a representation of the
dissertation results. Moreover, the author uses “content validity” to reconfirm that the
selected questions were the proper and appropriate questionnaires for data analysis by
asking for recommendations from the industrial cluster experts from the DIP. There

110
were two industrial cluster experts that the author asked for recommendations
concerning industrial cluster policy and for questionnaire review; namely:
(1) Mrs. Uraiwan Chantarayu Director
Bureau of Industrial Management
Department of Industrial Promotion
(2) Mrs. Yuparat Satawiriya Industrial Cluster Project Manager
Department of Industrial Promotion
The two industrial cluster experts above have had long work
experience regarding the development of the industrial cluster from the beginning of
the project and they could be counted on as being the persons that knew the most
about the industrial cluster in the DIP. They are responsible for managing the
industrial cluster overall in both the following and monitoring analysis. Therefore,
they were the best resources for obtaining recommendations regarding this matter.
2) Convergent Validity
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is the measurement that assures
validity of the indicator or convergent validity. EFA must have a value of factor
loading equal to or above 3.0, and this means that the indicator can be considered
acceptable due to sufficient validity.
In the study, the author tested the validity of the indicator/variable to
measure the participation of stakeholders, management ability, perceived support,
clarity of goals, ability of cluster members and policy Implementers, communication,
quality of program, and successful implementation of industrial cluster implementation in
Thailand, respectively, via exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The analysis on the
value of KMO and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity helped in the consideration of
appropriate indicators/variables to measure the exploratory factor analysis (EFA), as
illustrated in table 5.6 below.







111
Table 5.6 Explaining the Various Statistical Values for Considering the
Appropriateness of EFA

Statistical Value
Measurement KMO Bartlett’s Test of
Sphericity
Chi-Square
df Sig.
Participation of Stakeholders 0.805 4517.261* 81 0.000
Management ability 0.868 5787.001* 165 0.000
Perceived Support 0.527 143.239* 10 0.000
Clarity of goals 0.696 1191.186* 45 0.000
Ability of Cluster Members
and Policy Implementers 0.895 2300.871* 120 0.000
Communication 0.517 562.595* 15 0.000
Quality of Program 0.878 6379.674* 128 0.000
Successful Implementation 0.793 1965.136* 78 0.000

Note: * means p value < 0.05

As seen in table 5.6 above, the calculated value of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin was
greater than 0.5 and approaching 1. Therefore, available data were appropriate to use
of the technique of exploratory factor analysis (EPA).
In addition, Bartlett

s Test of Sphericity was used for testing the hypotheses.
H
0
: The variables are not related.
H
1
: The variables are related.
To test the statistical distribution by chi-square, it has significant value less
than 0.05. Therefore, H
0
was rejected This means that the variables have a relationship
with each other and are appropriate for using the exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
technique. Therefore, the measurement of the participation of stakeholders, management
ability, perceived support, clarity of goals, ability of cluster members and policy
implementers, communication, quality of project in the study of successful

112
implementation of industrial cluster implementation in Thailand were appropriate for
using the exploratory factor analysis (EFA).
To consider the validity of variables by the convergent validity of the
participation of stakeholders, the management ability, perceived support, clarity of
goals, ability of cluster members and policy implementers, communication, and
quality of program in the successful implementation of industrial cluster implementation
in Thailand are as follows:
Analyzing the indicator item loadings for each measured construct assessed
the convergent validity. In addition to the loading, weights were provided to
understand the importance of the construct score. Weights were also considered to be
the beta coefficients of the multiple regression formula. An absolute value of level
equal to or greater than 0.300 was considered acceptable to measure convergent
validity (Chin, 1998: 1-3; Coakes and Steel, 2001). However, the high correlated
group of questions to serve the construct and participation of stakeholders was
considered from a factor loading greater than 0.600. The factor loadings of each
construct are explained as follows.
1) Participation of stakeholders
The participation of stakeholders represented the level to which
participation of stakeholders join cluster activities. As shown in appendix B (table B.1),
the construct loadings were strong, the absolute values are ranging from 0.311 to
0.815, which demonstrated a strong level of convergent validity. The high correlated
group of questions regarded the following: “identify the problem,” “providence
information,” “participation in the period of initiation and monitoring the project,”
and “initiation of implementing industrial cluster.”
2) Management ability
Management ability represented the level to which management ability
to administrate industrial cluster project. As shown in appendix B (table B.2), the
construct loadings were strong, the absolute values are ranging from 0.351 to 0.968,
which demonstrated a strong level of convergent validity. The high correlated group
of questions regarded the following: “cooperation among cluster members and
relevant organizations,” “creating a cluster development agent (CDA),” “gathering

113
information and characteristics of industrial cluster as well as analyzing strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of industrial cluster,” “setting a controlling
plan and well organized planning of implementation,” “reporting on following and
monitoring the industrial cluster project,” and “selecting enterprises to participate in
the industrial cluster.”
3) Perceived support
Perceived support represented the level to which perceived support
from government agencies to the industrial clusters. As shown in appendix B (table
B.3), construct loadings were strong, the absolute values are ranging from 0.446 to
0.823, which demonstrated a strong level of convergent validity. The high correlated
group of questions regarded “sufficient budget and human resources for running
industrial cluster project.”
4) Clarity of goals
Clarity of goal represented the level to which clarity of goals in order
to make stakeholders understand the objective of industrial cluster project. As shown
in appendix B (table B.4), construct loadings were strong, the absolute value are
ranging from 0.463 to 0.817, which demonstrated a strong level of convergent
validity. The high correlated group of questions regarded “knowledge, understanding,
and realization of the development on industrial cluster,” “being enthusiastic for doing
cluster’s activities,” “kindness among cluster members or enterprises.”
5) Ability of cluster members and policy implementers
The ability of cluster members and policy implementers represented
the level to which the ability of cluster members and policy implementers runs
industrial cluster project. As shown in appendix B (table B.5), the construct loadings
were strong, the absolute values are from 0.360 to 0.824, which demonstrated a strong
level of convergent validity. The high correlated group of questions regarded
“considering overall benefit and needs of stakeholders,” “ability of planning
workflow throughout the project,” “deep understanding of the concept of industrial
cluster development,” “ability to coordinate, to provide consultancy, to translate, to
report, to manage, and to implement during cluster mission,” “having creating
thinking for analyzing industrial cluster,” “having confidence for providing one’s own
opinion,” “time duration of experience for doing the industrial cluster,” and
“responsibility for industrial cluster project.”

114
6) Communication
Communication represented the level to which communication
transfers from one unit to another unit. As shown in appendix B (table B.6), the
construct loadings were strong, the absolute values are from 0.341 to 0.963, which
demonstrated a strong level of convergent validity. The high correlated group of
questions regarded “exchanging information among cluster members,” “communication
and information distribution among cluster members,” “exchanging technological
spillover,” and “providing opinions regarding cluster implementation.”
7) Quality of project
Quality of project represented the level to which the quality of the
project considered from views of cluster members/enterprises. As shown in appendix
B (table B.7), the construct loadings were strong, the absolute values are ranging from
0.348 to 0.924, which demonstrated a strong level of convergent validity. The high
correlated group of questions regarded “satisfaction DIP officials who were
responsible for the industrial cluster project in many dimensions, such as allocated
time, provided consultancy,” “ability of understanding industrial cluster on expertise,
support, enthusiastic reliability, cautious caring, concepts, and implementation.”
8) Successful Implementation
Successful implementation represented the level to which the result of
implementation industrial cluster project was correspondent to the objectives of
industrial cluster project. As shown in appendix B (table B.8), the construct loadings
were strong, the absolute values are ranging from 0.351 to 0.831, which demonstrated
a strong level of convergent validity. The high correlated group of questions
regarded ‘realization and agree upon the importance of domestic and international
cluster,’ ‘understanding industrial cluster,’ ‘joining industrial cluster and receiving
benefits in return,’ ‘success in implementing activities,’ ‘promoting business,’
‘cooperation,’ ‘participation during implemented activities,’ and ‘promoting industrial
cluster by cluster members.’
In conclusion, the measurement of the participation of stakeholders,
management ability, support, clarity of goals, ability of cluster members and policy
implementers, communication, and quality of project in the successful implementation of
the industrial cluster implementation in Thailand were valid and can be considered
convergent in validity because the indicators or measurement variables had a value of
factor loading greater than 0.3.

115
5.2.3 Multicollinearity
The independent variables that were used to construct the model of successful
implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand consisted of 7 variables:
participation of stakeholders (PS), management ability (MA), perceived support
(SUP), clarity of goals (CG), ability of cluster members and policy implementers
(ACP), communication (COM), quality of program (QP) with successful
implementation (SI) exhibited a moderate positive correlation (r < 0.80) and did not
generate a multicollinearity problem. Therefore, it was not necessary to take out any
of the independent variables from the model analysis, as illustrated in table 5.7 below
(Leahy, 2001: 106 - 108).

Table 5.7 Correlation Matrix of Independent Variables

Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient (r) Independent
Variables PS MA SUP CG ACP COM QP
PS 1.000 -0.066 -0.277 0.173 -0.048 0.048 -0.037
MA 1.000 0.342 0.248 -0.003 0.356 0.078
SUP 1.000 0.043 -0.114 0.078 -0.073
CG 1.000 -0.085 0.440 0.056
ACP 1.000 -0.093 0.166
COM 1.000 0.029
QP 1.000

Note: Multicollinearity will reduce the estimation’s accuracy of the coefficient
that occurred only in a positive correlation. In the case of a negative
correlation, multicollinearity will provide accurate estimation and will be more
accurate as the negative correlation increases. The way to solve such a
problem is to take out the highly correlated independent variable.

5.2.4 Model Assessment
Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the hypothesized model.
Within the SEM approach, the causal relationships in the proposed model were

116
represented by a series of structural equations. The SEM will test causal relationships
simultaneously in order to determine how well the model represented the data. The
model assessment for the dissertation applied Amos Version 6.0.
The following symbols were also used.
= Latent Variable

= Observed Variable

= Casual Relationship


= Non-causal relationship

The following variables were also used

Table 5.8 Meaning of Variables

Kind of Variables Abbreviation Meaning
Observed Variable PS Participation of Stakeholders
Observed Variable MA Management Ability
Observed Variable SUP Support
Observed Variable CG Clarity of goal
Observed Variable ACP Ability of Cluster Members and Policy
Implementers
Observed Variable COM Communication
Observed Variable QP Quality of program
Latent Variable SI Successful Implementation
Observed Variable EN Effectiveness
Observed Variable EC Efficiency
Error Variable e Error Variable (ecom, eqp, esi, een, eec)



117
1) The Hypothesized Model to be Tested
Based on the literature review, the following model was framed and
developed. The 11 hypotheses stated that the proposed model fit well with the
empirical data and could be analyzed by Amos Version 6.0. The results of the model
assessment on successful implementation of the industrial cluster implementation in
Thailand by Amos Version 6.0 are shown in Figure 5.2 below.



Figure 5.2 The Results of the Hypothesized Model of Successful Implementation of
the Industrial Cluster in Thailand
Note: Chi-square =13.290, df = 11, P = 0.125, CMIN/DF =1.208, GFI = 0.987,
RMSEA = 0.031
*P<0.10, **P<0.05, ***P<0.01

According to figure 5.2, regarding the results of the model assessment
of the successful implementation of the industrial cluster implementation in Thailand
when considering the calculation on statistical values is found that the chi-square test
did not have a statistically significant level at 0.05 (P ≥ 0.05), which was the specified
criterion. Moreover, when considering the indices of the specified group or at 0.90, it
was found that all of the indices (GFI, AGFI, NFI, IFI, and CFI) passed the criterias.
Regarding the indices which were specified below 0.05, the indices of RMR and
RMSEA also passed the criterias. Moreover, the CMIN/DF index had a value of
1.208, which was approaching the value of “2.” Therefore, the model of successful
0.26* 
0.41** 
0.07
    0.43 
0.38**
0.25*
0.66***
0.17**
‐0.06
0.03
0.33**
0.36***
0.14
PS 
MA 
SUP 
CG 
ACP 
COM
QP
EN
EC
     SI 

118
implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand, with empirical data is, shown in
Table 5.16.

Table 5.9 The Overall Model Fit Indices

Indices Criteria Statistic values
1. Chi-square P


0.05 0.275
2. CMIN/DF (Chi-square
statistical
comparison of the
tested model and
the independent
model with the
saturated mode)



< 2

1.208
3. GFI (Comparative Fit
Index)


0.90 0.987
4. AGFI (Adjust
Goodness of Fit
Index)


0.90 0.948
5. NFI (Normed Fit
Index)


0.90 0.943
6. IFI (Incremental Fit
Index)


0.90 0.990
7. CFI (Comparative Fit
Index)


0.90 0.988
8. RMR (Root Mean
Square Residual)
< 0.05 0.015
9. RMSEA (Root Mean
Square Error of
Approximation)
<

0.05 0.031
Conclusion: The Causal Model of Successful Industrial Cluster Implementation in
Thailand Fit Well with the Empirical Data.


119
According to figure 5.2 and table 5.8, they confirmed that the
conceptual model was able to analyze by SEM. Figure 5.3 below represents only the
causal relationships that were supportive by statistical evidence.


Figure 5.3 The Causal Relationships of Supportive Hypotheses
Note: Chi-square =13.290, df = 11, P = 0.125, CMIN/DF =1.208, GFI = 0.987,
RMSEA = 0.031
*P<0.10, **P<0.05, ***P<0.01

Figure 5.3 above illustrates only the causal relationships that had
significant value (p-value) in statistical evidence. However, this does not mean that
the rest of the causal relationships that appear in figure 5.2 but they do not appear in
figure 5.3 due to unqualified statistical evidence are not factors affecting successful
implementation of industrial cluster policy. But for this case and period of time for
study, those causal relationships are not proper for being taken into account.







0.26* 
0.41** 
0.25*
0.66***
0.17**
0.33**
0.36***
MA 
SUP 
CG 
ACP 
COM
QP
     SI 

120
Table 5.10 Causal Relationships of a Successful Implementation Model

Path Coefficient
Factors b S.E. Beta C.R. P
COM <--- MA 0.374 0.066 0.356 5.642*** 0.000
QP <--- SUP -0.084 0.099 -0.057 -0.852 0.394
QP <--- CG 0.109 0.099 0.073 1.097 0.272
QP <--- ACP 0.219 0.089 0.166 2.477** 0.013
SI <--- COM 0.013 0.070 0.028 0.180 0.857
SI <--- QP 0.200 0.042 0.661 4.758*** 0.000
SI <--- PS 0.140 0.137 -0.143 1.021 0.307
SI <--- MA 0.120 0.071 0.258 1.705* 0.088
SI <--- SUP 0.148 0.066 0.334 2.242** 0.025
SI <--- CG 0.183 0.073 0.406 2.502** 0.012
SI <--- ACP 0.102 0.054 0.254 1.865* 0.062
EN <--- SI 1.000 0.428
EC <--- SI 0.732 0.296 0.385 2.470** 0.014

Note: *P < 0.10 (C.R/t-distribution > 1.64)
**P < 0.05 (C.R/t-distribution > 1.96)
***P < 0.01 (C.R/t-distribution > 2.58)

In table 5.9 above, a path-coefficient analysis was carried out in
accordance with the causal relationships shown in the path diagram (Figure 5.2) in
order to determine the interrelationships between the variables. It was found that the
quality of the project had the highest direct effect on successful implementation of the
industrial cluster in Thailand (p < 0.01; path coefficient = 0.661). Clarity of goal also
had a direct effect on successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand
(p < 0.05; path coefficient = 0.406). Management ability had a direct effect on
communication regarding industrial cluster implementation in Thailand (p < 0.01;
path coefficient = 0.356). Support had a direct effect on successful implementation of
the industrial cluster in Thailand (p< 0.05; path coefficient = 0.334). Management

121
ability had a direct effect on successful the implementation of the industrial cluster in
Thailand (p < 0.10; path coefficient = 0.258). The ability of cluster members and
policy implementers had a direct effect on the successful implementation of the
industrial cluster in Thailand (p < 0.10; path coefficient = 0.254), and the ability of
cluster members and policy implementers had a direct effect on the quality of the
program in industrial cluster implementation in Thailand (p < 0.05; path coefficient =
0.166), respectively.
Finally, it was found that effectiveness and efficiency had factor
loadings regarding the successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand
equal to 0.428 and 0.385, respectively.
Furthermore, the coefficient of determination was used to indicate the
validity of the model ranging between 0 - 1. The coefficient of determination R
2
was
obtained by ordinary least squares regression, which gave R
2
as the square of the
correlation coefficient between the original and modeled data values. If R
2
was closer
to 1, the model indicated the goodness of fit of a model.  Square multiple correlation
or R
2
shows the validity of the model. Joreskog and Sorbom (1993: 26) suggest that a
good model should have a coefficient of determination ≥ 40%. The analysis revealed
that successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand could be explained
very well by the model since R
2
equalled 95.9%. (0.959*100), as illustrated in table
5.10 below.

Table 5.11 Coefficient of Determination of a Successful Implementation Model

Dependent Variables Squared Multiple Correlations (R
2
)
COM 0.127
QP 0.036
SI 0.959

2) Testing of Direct and Indirect Effects
Referring to the path coefficient indices, the total effects could be
ranked from the highest effect as follows: 1) quality of project had effects on the
successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand (path coefficient =

122
0.661, direct effect = 0.661); 2) clarity of goal had effects on the successful
implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand (path coefficient =0.406, direct
effect = 0.454, indirect effect = 0.048); 3) management ability had effects on
communication regarding industrial cluster implementation in Thailand (path
coefficient =0.356, direct effect = 0.356); 4) support had effects on the successful
implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand (path coefficient =0.296, direct
effect = 0.334, indirect effect = -0.038); and 5) management ability had effects on the
successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand (path coefficient
=0.268, direct effect = 0.258, indirect effect = 0.010), respectively.
To analyze the direct and indirect effects, it was necessary to determine
the standardized total effect, direct effect and indirect effect, as they appear in table
5.11below.

Table 5.12 Direct and Indirect Effect Matrix

Dependent Variables Independent
Variables
Effect
PS MA SUP CG ACP COM QP
COM DE 0.000 0.356 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
IE 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
TE 0.000 0.356 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
QP DE 0.000 0.000 -0.057 0.073 0.166 0.000 0.000
IE 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
TE 0.000 0.000 -0.057 0.073 0.166 0.000 0.000
SI DE 0.143 0.258 0.334 0.406 0.254 0.028 0.661
IE 0.000 0.010 -0.038 0.048 0.109 0.000 0.000
TE 0.143 0.268 0.296 0.454 0.363 0.028 0.661

Consequently, the structural equation modeling (SEM) can be proposed as:
COM = 0.356*** MA; R
2
= 0.127
QP = -0.057 SUP + 0.073 CG +0.166** ACP; R
2
= 0.036
SI = 0.143 PS +0.268* MA +0.296** SUP+0.454** CG
+0.363* ACP+0.028 COM +0.661*** QP; R
2
= 0.959

123
The structural equation modeling on successful implementation above
indicates that all dependent variables were positively correlated with successful
implementation since all path coefficients had positive signs. However, the most
impact on successful implementation was the quality of the project since the path
coefficient of quality of project had the highest value (equals to 0.661) with a
statistical significance at the 0.01 level. In addition, management ability, perceived
support, clarity of goal, and the ability of cluster members and policy implementers
were influential regarding successful implementation as well.

5.2.5 Testing of Research Hypotheses
The hypotheses were tested by using the SEM technique. The results of the
hypothesis testing are presented below:
H 1.1 Participation of stakeholders has an effect on the successful
implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand.
The results of the hypothesis testing at a statistical significance of 0.05 showed
that the participation of stakeholders had no effect on successful implementation of
the industrial cluster in Thailand (p

0.05), which clarified that the participation of
stakeholders did not effect successful implementation of the industrial cluster in
Thailand.
In conclusion, the participation of stakeholders had no effect on successful
implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand. The hypothesis was not
supported.
H 1.2 Communication has an effect on the successful implementation of
the industrial cluster in Thailand.
The results of the hypothesis testing at a statistical significance of 0.05 showed
that communication had no effect on successful implementation of the industrial
cluster in Thailand (p

0.05), which clarified that communication did not affect
successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand.
In conclusion, communication had no effect on successful implementation of
the industrial cluster in Thailand. The hypothesis was not supportable.


124
H 1.3 Management ability has an effect on the successful implementation
of the industrial cluster in Thailand.
The results of the hypothesis testing at a statistical significance of 0.05 showed
that management ability had a direct effect on successful implementation of the
industrial cluster in Thailand (p < 0.10), which provided a path coefficient = 0.258.
This explains that the higher management ability of industrial cluster implementation
in Thailand will also increase successful implementation.
In conclusion, management ability has an effect on the successful implementation
of the industrial cluster in Thailand. The hypothesis was supportable.
H 1.4 Perceived support has an effect on the successful implementation of
the industrial cluster in Thailand.
The results of the hypothesis testing at a statistical significance of 0.10 showed
that perceived support had a direct effect on successful implementation of the
industrial cluster in Thailand (p < 0.10), which provided a path coefficient = 0.334.
This explains that the higher perceived support of industrial cluster implementation in
Thailand will also increase successful implementation.
In conclusion, perceived support has an effect on the Successful Implementation
of the Industrial Cluster in Thailand. The hypothesis was supportable.
H 1.5 Quality of project has an effect on successful implementation of the
industrial cluster in Thailand.
The results of the hypothesis testing at a statistical significance of 0.05 showed
that quality of project had a direct effect on successful implementation of the
industrial cluster in Thailand (p < 0.05), which provided a path coefficient = 0.661.
This explains that a high quality program in industrial cluster implementation in
Thailand will also increase successful implementation.
In conclusion, the quality of the project has an effect on successful
implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand. The hypothesis was supportable.
H 1.6 Clarity of goals has an effect on the successful implementation of
the industrial cluster in Thailand.
The results of the hypothesis testing at a statistical significance of 0.05 showed
that clarity of goals had a direct effect on successful implementation of the industrial
cluster in Thailand (p < 0.05), which provided a path coefficient = 0.406. This

125
explains that having clear goals in industrial cluster implementation in Thailand will
also increase successful implementation.
In conclusion, clarity of goals has an effect on successful implementation of
industrial cluster implementation in Thailand. The hypothesis was supportable.
H 1.7 Ability of cluster members and policy implementers has an effect
on the successful implementation of the industrial cluster in
Thailand.
The results of the hypothesis testing at a statistical significance of 0.05 showed
that the ability of cluster members and policy implementers had a direct and indirect
effect on the successful implementation of quality of project of industrial cluster
implementation in Thailand (p < 0.10), which provided a path coefficient = 0.363 (DE
= 0.254, IE= 0.109). This explains that a higher ability of cluster members and policy
implementers in industrial cluster implementation in Thailand will also increase
successful implementation.
In conclusion, the ability of cluster members and policy implementers had an
effect on the successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand. The
hypothesis was supportable.
H 2.1 Management ability has an effect on communication in industrial
cluster implementation in Thailand.
The results of the hypothesis testing at a statistical significance of 0.01 showed
that management ability had a direct effect on communication in industrial cluster
implementation in Thailand (p < 0.01), which provided a path coefficient = 0.356.
This explains that the higher management ability of industrial cluster implementation
in Thailand will also increase the quality of communication.
In conclusion, management ability had an effect on communication in
industrial cluster implementation in Thailand. The hypothesis was supported.
H 3.1 Perceived support has an effect on the quality of project in
industrial cluster implementation in Thailand.
The results of the hypothesis testing at a statistical significance of 0.05 showed
that perceived support had no effect on the quality of the program in industrial cluster
implementation in Thailand (p

0.05), which clarified that perceived support did not
affect the quality of the project in industrial cluster implementation in Thailand.

126
In conclusion, perceived support had no effect on the quality of the program in
industrial cluster implementation in Thailand. The hypothesis was not supportable.
H 3.2 Clarity of goals has an effect on the quality of project in industrial
cluster implementation in Thailand.
The results of the hypothesis testing at a statistical significance of 0.05 showed
that clarity of goals had no effect on the quality of the program in industrial cluster
implementation in Thailand (p

0.05), which clarified that the clarity of goals did not
affect the quality of the program in industrial cluster implementation in Thailand.
In conclusion, clarity of goals had no effect on the quality of the program in
industrial cluster implementation in Thailand. The hypothesis was not supportable.
H 3.3 Ability of cluster members and policy implementers has an effect
on the quality of project in industrial cluster implementation in
Thailand.
The result of the hypothesis testing at the statistical significance of 0.05
showed that the ability of cluster members and policy implementers had a direct effect
on the quality of the project in industrial cluster implementation in Thailand (p <
0.05), which provided a path coefficient = 0.116. This explains that the higher ability
of cluster members and policy implementers in industrial cluster implementation in
Thailand will also increase the quality of a project.
In conclusion, the ability of cluster members and policy implementers had an
effect on the quality of the program in industrial cluster implementation in Thailand.
Therefore, the hypothesis was supportable.

Table 5.13 Summary of Results of Hypothesis Testing

Hypotheses Support/
Not Support
Effect
H 1.1 Participation of Stakeholders has an effect on the
successful implementation of the industrial cluster in
Thailand.
Not Support -
H 1.2 Communication has an effect on the successful
implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand.
Not Support -

127
Table 5.13 (Continued)


Hypotheses Support/
Not Support
Effect
H 1.3 Management ability has an effect on the
successful implementation of the industrial cluster in
Thailand.
Support DE = 0.258
H 1.4 Support has an effect on the successful
implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand.
Support DE = 0.334

H 1.5 Quality of project has an effect on the successful
implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand.
Support DE = 0.661

H 1.6 Clarity of goals has an effect on the successful
implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand.
Support DE = 0.406

H 1.7 Ability of cluster members and policy
implementers has an effect on the successful
implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand.
Support TE = 0.363
DE = 0.254
IE = 0.109
Thailand.
H 3.1 Support has an effect on the quality of the project
in industrial cluster implementation in Thailand.
Not Support -
H 3.2 Clarity of goals has an effect on the quality of the
project in industrial cluster implementation in Thailand.
Not Support -
H 3.3 Ability of cluster members and policy
implementers has an effect on the quality of the project
in industrial cluster implementation in Thailand.
Support DE = 0.116
 

CHAPTER 6

INTERPRETATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

This chapter concerns the findings from the statistical analysis of data from the
clusters members of Department of Industrial Promotion (DIP) in Thailand. The
usefulness of the findings means the improvement of policy implementation.
This dissertation on the study of the factors contributing to the success of
industrial cluster implementation in Thailand has three objectives as follows: 1) to
study the criteria of effectiveness and efficiency of the industrial cluster, 2) to identify
the factors that lead to industrial cluster implementation in Thailand from an
implementation perspective, and 3) to offer suggestions for improving the implementation
of the industrial cluster. The study covered 22 industrial clusters implemented by the
Department of Industrial Promotion (DIP) in fiscal year 2007. These 22 industrial
clusters were dispersed throughout every region of the country. The author took
selected questions that corresponded to the author’s conceptual framework from
questionnaires in the DIP’s database. The population as at the individual level, with
cluster members that had joined 22 industrial cluster project. The total population
was 220 (10 respondents per industrial cluster. In order to complete the study, the
author applied the industrial cluster concept in internal and external of Thailand.
Also, the author considered the appropriation of policy implementation models for the
adaptability in order to use for the study. Policy implementation models are from
various popular scholars such as Van Meter and Van Horn (1975) in a model of inter-
governmental policy implementation, Sabatier and Mazmanian (1980) in a top-down
model, Edward (1980) in representing factors affect to policy implementation,
Chandarasorn (1993) in six policy implementation models, etc. Moreover, the author
went deeply into the study of the Thai industrial policy initiated historically by the
Thai government in order to better understand Thai industrial evolution policy as well
as the experiences of implementing industrial clusters in various countries, including


129
the conceptual model of the cluster for enhancing understanding of creating the
author’s own conceptual framework.

6.1 Interpretations of the Research

The study mainly used the quantitative method to obtain the results of the
study analysis. However, the author used content validity by asking for recommendations
from two industrial cluster experts at the DIP: Mrs. Uraiwan Chantarayu, and Mrs.
Yuparat Satawiriya). There were some raising questions while conducting the dissertation,
sometimes questions emerged in the contrast of the author’s opinion while conducting
the literature review, studying all those answered questionnaire, explaining of what
the author found in results after testing conceptual framework and the outcome of the
some result was contrast to what the author believed. The author also found that
content validity was very useful for the study since some theories found from other
studies in similar cases might be different from the findings of this study. The
conclusion of the research can be classified into two parts; the first part will be
summarize and discussed in what the author found in the descriptive analysis, and the
second part will cover the results of applying statistical instruments to the test of the
author’s conceptual framework.

6.1.1 Interpretations of Descriptive Data
The main motives for enterprises to participate in industrial clusters are
technological base and the market channel. In terms of the technological-based
motivation, enterprises, mostly small size SMEs, have the expectation on having new
technological knowledge and the know-how of other enterprises. Through research
and development (R&D) cooperation, where most participating enterprises do not
have enough funds or resources to have their own R&D, so that they join industrial
clusters, they may increase their innovative potential and develop new products and
processes more quickly. Bidault and Fischer (1994) claim that technology can make
enterprises “buy time” and be more likely to realize a first mover advantage in the
market. Correspondent to the motive of enterprises, Nueno and Osterveld (1988) state
that the combination of the technological knowledge of different parties can also lead
to improvement in the quality of the innovation process. Joint R&D helps to share


130
fixed costs and improve the efficiency of the innovation process. Therefore, through
technological based, enterprises can extend their economy of scale and scope. DIP
officials that are responsible for the industrial cluster agree with the importance of
enhancing R&D so they have employed such intensive courses as leaning in order to
reduce production costs to enterprises.
6.1.1.1 In terms of the market channel, enterprises are more interested if
participation in the industrial cluster helps them to have more market access. The
author found that enterprises could produce products, but they did not have enough of
their desired market channel since their products were not differentiated from their
competitors and the prices were not attractive. Therefore, activities are served to
assist in seeking new markets, it will have more attention from enterprises. However,
most enterprises that are DIP cluster members have a lack of understanding of
marketing strategy. In order to obtain greater demand on the part of the customer,
enterprises need to know more about market strategy. DIP officials that are
responsible for a project understand the need on seeking new market channel of the
enterprises so they create training course in marketing for enterprises, and after the
courses end or in between the training period, DIP officials try to seek new market
channels by demonstrating their products in various exhibitions.
6.1.1.2 In terms of arising problems for the industrial cluster, enterprises
mostly meet managerial problems such as unwanted knowledge transfer, lack of
commitment, and time loss. Those can be explained in more detail as follows.
1) Unwanted knowledge transfer
Porter (1997) mentions that the cluster mapping concept
suggests a multidimensional approach that combines various dimensions: 1) the
geographical dimension 2) the institutional dimension 3) the horizontal dimension,
and 4) the vertical dimension. The author found that the unwanted knowledge came
from two dimensions: the horizontal dimension (competitors in the product market)
and the vertical dimension (suppliers, main producers, and users in a value chain of a
certain product). In both dimensions, sometimes the cluster members face a conflict
of interests. For the horizontal dimension, the cluster members who are in the same
or similar industry may need the same technology base but they ignore the transfer of
technology to others since they always consider that they are competitors in the


131
market. For the vertical dimension, the cluster members are in different lines of
production so that the needs of knowledge transfer are different.
2) Lack of commitment
The industrial cluster does not have a legal contract so that
sometimes enterprises promise to do things and fail to do what they promise. To form
the industrial cluster, they have to divide their work. Some of them will do what they
commit to only when they are free from their business.
3) Time loss
Time loss refers to lost time during activities: meetings,
discussions, and joining cluster activities. Enterprises that are cluster members are
SMEs, and they have to take care of their business by themselves. Therefore, if they
spend time for such activities, they will have less time to do their own business.
Overall, it cannot be denied that technological base and the
market channel have to go together. To produce quality product with a competitive
price has better chance for exploring new market channels. However, DIP officials
believe that participation from enterprises by sharing costs will make for a sustainable
cluster. Therefore, participation in some training courses, DIP needs to ask enterprises
to pay minimal expenses. On the other hand, minimizing these three problems,
including unwanted knowledge transfer, lack of commitment, and time loss, require
time for enterprises to have a period to adjust themselves and to be more open-minded.

6.1.2 Interpretations of Data Analysis from Statistical Results
The author tested the conceptual framework by using several techniques,
including descriptive statistics, the value of the Cronbach alpha for testing reliability,
exploratory factor analysis (EFA) for testing validity by considering the KMO and
Barlett’s Test of Sphericity, and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). Since the data
used for analysis were secondary data. Those secondary data is in various levels of
Likert scale, to solve this problem, the author used Z-scores for standardization
technique for standardized scores (Kanlaya Vanichbuncha, 2004). Some data were
collected at the group level; therefore, there were 22 respondents (each person
represented the answer for his group). For this problem, the author applied the
principle of “disaggregate regression” to adjust a higher level of variable to a lower


132
level, and the result will cause every variable is in the same level of variable (Numchai
Suppareakchaisakul, 2009). Moreover, the author used the “content validity” technique
by interview industrial cluster experts in order to have a better concept of the results
of the data analysis. In addition, the author tested variables that were appropriate for
measuring the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) by analysis of the value of the KMO
and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity. The result showed that the value of the KMO and
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity passed the criterias. The results of the evaluation of the
EFA showed that all information through the constructs could be used in the
quantitative analysis.
As concerns the test of the hypotheses, the test results had to prove that the
model fit and passed all needed indices so that structure equation modeling could be
used for analyzing the author’s conceptual framework. The author set 11 hypotheses
for study as follows:
H 1 (1.1) Participation of stakeholders has an effect on the successful
implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand.
H 2 (1.2) Communication has an effect on the successful
implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand.
H 3 (1.3) Management ability has an effect on the successful
implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand.
H 4 (1.4) Perceived support has an effect on the successful
implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand.
H 5 (1.5) Quality of project has an effect on successful
implementation.
H 6 (1.6) Clarity of goals has and effect on the successful
implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand.
H 7 (1.7) The ability of cluster members and policy implementers has
an effect on the successful implementation of the industrial
cluster in Thailand.
H 8 (2.1) Management ability has effect on communication in
industrial cluster implementation in Thailand.
H 9 (3.1) Perceived support has an effect on the quality of project
in industrial cluster implementation in Thailand.


133
H 10 (3.2) Clarity of goals has an effect on the quality of project
in industrial cluster implementation in Thailand.
H 11 (3.3) The ability of cluster members and policy implementers
has an effect on the quality of project in industrial
cluster implementation in Thailand.
The results illustrate that the major factors that determine the successful
implementation of Thailand are perceived support, clarity of goals, ability of cluster
members and policy implementation, and quality of project. Interestingly, the ability
of cluster members and policy implementation exhibited both a direct and indirect
effect (past quality of project) on successful implementation. This also implies that
quality of project was a very influential variable affecting successful implementation,
with a path coefficient = 0.66 and p-value < 0.01. If the entire model of the study is
considered regarding the factors contributing to the success of industrial cluster
implementation in Thailand, the overall model indicates the relatively high goodness
of fit of the model since R
2
equals 95.9%; Joreskog and Sorbom (1993: 26) suggest
that a good model should have a coefficient of determination equal to or greater than
40%.
However, the results from the structural equation modeling supported six
Hypotheses: H 3 (1.3), H 4 (1.4), H 5 (1.5), H 6 (1.6), H 7 (1.7), and H 11 (3.3).
However, this does not mean that unsupported hypotheses were insignificant but that
there were reasons behind that. In fact, for the rest of the variables, such as participation of
stakeholders, management ability, and communication, the author found in the
literature reviews of famous scholars that they were also key factors that led to
successful implementation. However, most of the reviews were from abroad and they
do not represent the same experience as in Thailand; further, the period of stud was at
the start-up period of developing the industrial cluster, so those variables may not
have been so influential as the beginning stage. The author still believes that if
clusters are in the growing period, those variables will have to be taken into account.
6.1.2.1 Interaction of positive relationships between participation of
stakeholders and successful implementation
Even though Ketels (2003) and the European Commission (2006) state
that the participation of stakeholders has a positive effect on successful implementation, as


134
mentioned in the same content as appeared in the organization development model
(Voradej Chandarasorn, 1984), and a model of inter-governmental policy implementation
(Van Meter and Van Horn, 1975). On the other hand, the result of the model indicated
that both variables (participation of stakeholders and successful implementation) had
no positive relationship without a statistically significant level (p-value ≥ 0.10). This
does not mean that the statements by scholars were wrong but that industrial
implementation in Thailand is a particular case. All of the scholars mentioned above
claimed a positive relationship between the two variables in general cases. However,
the author went further by interviewing and observing people in the real practice of
the industrial cluster implemented by the DIP and sought a solution in order to answer
the question “why?” What the author found out was that the industrial cluster in
Thailand was a new concept for stakeholders during that period (fiscal year 2007) so
many of stakeholders did not see the benefits of having an industrial cluster. At the
very first of opening of the project, they came to serve their notice and disappeared,
and some said that they came for shopping around; therefore, they did not pay a
hundred percent attention to sincerely participating. As seen in the collected data
from the DIP, it proved that what the author found out was true since the numbers of
participants during the very first starting period as higher than when the project had
been started for a while. Thus, if takes this time of this period for studying with
external environment in normal situation, the author believes that these two variables
will have a strong positive causal relationship with statistical significance.
6.1.2.2 Interaction of positive relationships between management
ability and successful implementation
Bardach (1977) and Edward (1980) state that the important part of
implementing policy in the administration process includes the expanding of
management ability in applying measures and regulations efficiently. This implies
that management ability and successful implementation have a positive relationship
and management ability has a direct influence on successful implementation.
According to the reviews, the results corresponded to the statistical evidence (p-value
< 0.10, path coefficient = 0.26). The author studied deeply in details and discovered
if DIP officials strictly followed to measurements and regulations of cluster
procedures, the industrial clusters would have faster development in implementing the
cluster.


135
6.1.2.3 Interaction of the positive relationships between perceived
support and successful implementation
Van Meter and Van Horn (1975) stated that the size of the agency staff
was a major factor to make organizational capacity to implement policy as well as
some other needed resources, such as government funds and other financial resources
supplied to policy programs for facilitating program implementation. This was
parallel to what the author found out, that industrial clusters needed certain financial
funds to run their activities, such as the expenses for the administrative office and
other needed activities. To assist with government funding is still needed for every
industrial cluster at every development stage. However, the amount needed depends
on the financial status of that industrial cluster. Industrial clusters will absolutely fail
if they have no supporting budget at the beginning stage since it is difficult to look for
cooperation if enterprises still do not see the benefit. As a statistical result, perceived
support as positively influential on successful implementation with a p-value < 0.05
and path coefficient = 0.33.
6.1.2.4 Interaction of positive relationships between clarity of goals
and successful implementation
Clarity of goals can refer to unambiguous policy standards and goals.
Van Meter and Van Horn (1975) claimed that both terms, policy standards and goals,
should be easily measurable. According to them, those policy standards and goals
should have clear directives and should provide a structure implementation process
that supports methods for the proper policy implementation. Thus, clarity of goals
cannot refuse to count as an important factor in creating successful implementation.
The statistical results prove that clarity of goals has a strong positive effect on
successful implementation with a p-value < 0.05, and a path coefficient = 0.41.
6.1.2.5 Interaction of positive relationships of ability of cluster members
and policy implementers regarding successful implementation
The key effect of leading policy implementation to be a success cannot
deny that the ability of cluster members and policy implementers should be taken into
account. Van Meter and Van Horn (1975) mentioned that successful implementation
is a function of the implementing organization’s capability to do what is required of it.
This statement refers to the ability of policy implementers to overcome any obstacles


136
in implementing the project. With their idea, the organization’s capability can extend
to that the ability of cluster members is another parallel factor to accelerate the faster
of successful implementation. In the real practice of the DIP, it was found that the
ability of both cluster members and policy implementers was one of the key success
factors in making an industrial cluster project a success. Ability can refer to related
work experience, level of education, and cognition and understanding of what
procedures make the project reach goals. In this case, statistical evidence (p-value <
0.10, path coefficient = 0.25) insures that the ability of cluster members and policy
implementers has a positive effect on successful implementation.
6.1.2.6 Interaction of positive relationships between communication
and successful implementation
In Van Meter and Van Horn (1975), open communication was
discovered to be an important factor affecting successful implementation. Greater
non-argumentative communication is more likely to lead to a greater degree of
successful implementation. According to the DIP’s experience with the communication
factor in the industrial cluster project, it was found that good communication
sometimes may not cause a high level of successful implementation. In this sense,
what the DIP found differs from the reviewed literature, because not all information
transmitted from one unit to another is frequent enough to make that information
benefit what the individual were doing in the process. However, the author believes
that communication and successful implementation really do have a positive causal
relationship; however, further studies have to widely prove this factor. Concerning
statistical evidence (p-value ≥ 0.10), it illustrates that the causal relationships
between two variables are not proven by statistical evidence.
6.1.2.7 Interaction of positive relationships between quality of project
and successful implementation
Regarding the quality of projects, it is agreed that successful
implementation influences successful implementation. Elmore (1979) has stressed
that the complexity of the function of both the absolute number of actors and the
number of transactions between them which is required to accomplished a given task.
This can be applicable to measuring the quality of a project since the completed
structure of an industrial cluster as appearing in cluster mapping does not seem to be


137
complex but the components of it have what industrial cluster should have in order to
accomplish the goals of implementing the cluster. According to the review of the
literature and strong statistical evidence (p-value < 0.01, path coefficient = 0.66), this
reconfirms that the quality of a project has a positive relationship with successful
implementation.

6.2 Criteria of Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Industrial Cluster

In this dissertation, the author used two criteria to determine the successful
implementation of the industrial cluster, as mentioned in Patton (1979). He recommended
that successful implementation can be extended by fulfilling 2 criteria:

6.2.1 Effectiveness
Effectiveness is the ability to fulfill the objective of policy, measure, planning,
or project. By using the effectiveness criteria, the study can be done by making a
comparison between “actual results” and “planned results. Effectiveness can be
measured by two methods:
1) The goal-attainment approach is the method of measuring the
outcome at the end of project implementation, not measuring between each step of
implementation.
2) The systems approach is the consideration of a project as to
whether the outcome covers from the beginning to the end (Thougchai Santiwong,
1991).

6.2.2 Efficiency
In terms of economics, efficiency is the ability to obtain maximum output
under given costs or given outputs with minimum costs. Measuring efficiency can be
done by considering the output of actual implementation and whether the budget has
been used, so that the project results in the highest outcome compared to a certain
budget; that project is the most efficient. Efficiency can also be measured by the
benefit-cost ratio (BCR). The BCR in the industrial cluster project in fiscal year 2007
equaled 1.4 Therefore, the results of the overall industrial clusters indicated that


138
industrial cluster implementation passed the criterion of efficiency because it was
greater than 1.

6.3 Suggestions

6.3.1 Suggestions for the Department of Industrial Promotion (DIP)
Referring to the literature review and to the study of researchers,
recommendations for better industrial cluster performance by the DIP can be made as
follows.
First, the author found that the process of formulating cluster policy was
crucial to effective policy implementation. Better policy formulation will lead to
better policy choice and better implementation. The cluster implementation by the
DIP has started to formulate industrial cluster project since industrial cluster has been
considered the popular issue by popularized scholar: Michael E. Porter (1997). With
Porter’s issue, it leads the Thai government to apply the sense of initiative cluster is
for enhancing Thai competitiveness in the world. Thus, the DIP treated the
development of the industrial cluster as a “project” with the objective of having a
finite time span for implementation and to give highest priority to quickly meet
targets and measurable outcomes. It seems that the development of the DIP industrial
cluster tended to be “issue-oriented” and focused on “response” so that the
implementation of the industrial cluster by the DIP was misleading concerning the
complex and dynamic aspect of the cluster concept. The DIP needs to consider that
industrial cluster development is a complex and continuous development process, not
just a project. The industrial cluster involves interdependent actors, and interactions
among key actors in clusters are crucial to the success of cluster policy. The
recommendations for the DIP to develop a more successful industrial cluster regarded
emphasizing the “cluster process” rather than the “cluster project.”
Second, cluster initiatives seem to be more successful if they are based on a
shared conceptual framework of competitiveness. In reality, the lack of a broad
consensus about the drivers of economic performance turns out to be the factor most
strongly associated with the failure of cluster initiatives. The implication for success
is to be more manageable in the interest of different cluster members/enterprises in


139
the cluster. Enterprises tend to be more interested in productivity growth and
innovation, while government tends to be more interested in job creation than higher
productivity, so there are differences in interests. This implies? that the sharing of the
conceptual framework of competitiveness from the point of view of cluster members
and the DIP will be needed to realize successful implementation.
Third, in order to select an industrial cluster to develop from the empirical
statistics, it was found that a cluster seems to be more successful if it focuses on a
cluster already strong and set in a location with a good business environment (Ketels,
2003). Therefore, the DIP should focus firstly on the selective activation of clusters
rather than on doubtful future clusters. Activating clusters seems to be more
successful if it is part of a broader strategy to improve the microeconomic business
environment in a particular region or country.
Fourth, the strong support of the successful industrial cluster is that the cluster
needs at least a small operational budget to finance its administrative cost with a
dedicated “cluster facilitator” or “cluster development agent (CDA).” If such a
resource is not available, cluster initiatives are very difficult to sustain over time. It is
interesting that no negative effect of government financing for supporting a project as
found, including the support for the analytical results in this dissertation. As long as
cluster members or enterprises are heavily involved in the governance of cluster
initiative, the government seems to have a positive role in providing an operational
budget.
Fifth, DIP should pay more attention to understanding the rationales, motivations,
and capabilities of each player in the industrial cluster. The result is to make DIP
officials demonstrate the successful development of the industrial cluster since they
will be able to understand not merely “what” strategy should be applied but also
“when” strategy should be implemented. Frequently, by interviewing cluster members
or enterprises, the answer was that DIP officials, many times, considered a
popularized strategy in making a policy a success but discarded about appropriate
period of time of policy implementation. The terms of understanding rationales,
motivations, and capabilities were related to be a partial scope in psychological
thought of implementing a policy. The implementation of industrial cluster development
should take into account paying more attention to “right time” and to “sequence.”


140
6.3.2 Suggestions for Enterprises
Based on the study and the recommendations of Hulshoff and Snel (1998), the
author synthesized the important tools that lead to successful industrial cluster
implementation as follows:
First, in terms of shared goals or interests of the co-operative efforts, enterprises
have to encourage cluster members to share their goals and interests in order to make
them have the feeling of participation and that the cluster belongs to them so that they
will be more willing to cooperate in cluster activities. The heart of the important
industrial concept is to create reliability among enterprises in order to bring down “the
wall” of distrusting each other.
Second, regarding good management in terms of administration and financial
arrangement, the industrial cluster should have its own budget to pay for cluster
activity costs. The author noticed that highly developed industrial clusters tend to
look for revenue for their clusters by sharing a percentage of the selling volume that
can be seen from cluster to cluster, by donating their excess products from an order to
the cluster and selling them and collecting revenue for the cluster, etc. However,
good management in terms of administration cannot be overlooked since good
cooperation requires good internal administration in the cluster as a fundamental
stage.

6.4 Limitations of the Research

First, with reference to information received for the data analysis dimension,
the educational levels of cluster members/enterprises that answered the questionnaire
were widely different since the industrial clusters were composed of various industrial
sectors such as agriculture, processed food, textiles, furniture, etc. Different industrial
clusters have different technology, investment, and knowledge-base; therefore, the
backgrounds of cluster members are very different. Educational levels of cluster
members/enterprises are from the Ph.D. level to the level of individuals with little or
no education. Therefore, the author believes that the levels of understanding and
conceptual ideas in answering the questionnaire were different and this may have
caused the answers to be not really what they wanted to answer.


141
Second, the results of the industrial cluster analysis can be applied to the
beneficial use only in developing countries; they may not be appropriate for
developed countries. One of the significant factors in making cluster policy a success
is the cooperation from stakeholders; therefore, psychological understanding needs to
be considered in order to achieve good correspondence. Different levels of countries’
development mostly come with a different nature of thinking.

6.5 Recommendations for Further Research

In the dissertation, the author emphasized dealing with the characteristics of
the industrial cluster, the factors affecting the successful implementation of the
industrial cluster project, and providing recommendations to related parties so that
they can cooperate and make the industrial cluster project more successful. However,
the author obtained the results of the factors that affected the industrial cluster in
general since the industrial cluster in Thailand is at the beginning stage of
development. Currently, however, the concept of the cluster in Thailand has been
implemented for a sufficient time period for the study of the factors that influence its
development at different stages.
METI (2005a) and Porter (1998a) have classified cluster development stages
into 3 and 4 stages. The details are illustrated in table 6.1 below.

Table 6.1 Different Stages of Cluster Development

METI (2005a) Porter (1998a)
1
st
Stage
Start-up period (1
st
-5
th
year) The established or
embryonic cluster
Form the “network where each face is visible,” a
basis for industrial clusters, in cooperation with
clusters which are developed independently.
The starting point of cluster
development and will
develop to be the second
stage


142
Table 6.1 (Continued)


METI (2005a) Porter (1998a)
2
nd
Stage
Growth period (6
th
-10
th
year) The growth cluster
Networking promotion is continued and specific
businesses are developed. At the same time,
management innovation of companies and the
creation of ventures are promoted.
There is a room for growth.
3
rd
Stage
Self-sustaining period
(11
th
-15
th
year)
The mature cluster
Networking and development of specific businesses
are further promoted. Financial independence of
industrial cluster activities is encouraged.
Stable but might not
experience growth anymore
4
th
Stage
None The declining cluster
Failing growth. A declining
cluster can possibly be
reinvented and enter into a
new lifecycle.

Source: METI (2005a), Porter (1998a)

Therefore, future research could be conducted in terms of studying the key
success factors in implementing the industrial cluster at different stages.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alexander, E. R. 1985. From Idea to Action: Note for a Contingency Theory of
Policy Implementation Process. Administration and Society. 16, 4
(February): 403-426.
Anderson, J. C. and Gerbing, D. W. 1988. Structural Equation Modeling in Practice:
A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach. Psychological
Bulletin. 103 (3): 411–423.
Arbuckle, J. J. 1995. AMOS User’ s Guide. Chicago: Small Waters Corporation.
Athwell, Paul and Gerstein, Dean R. 1979. Government Policy and Local Practice.
American Sociological Review. (April): 311-327.
Babbie, E. R. 2004. The Practice of Social Research. 9
th
ed. Belmont, C.A.:
Wadsworth Thomsom Learning.
Bardach, E. 1977. The Implementation Game: What Happen after a Bill
Becomes a Law. Cambridge and London: The MIT Press.
Benson, Kenneth J. 1975. The Interorganizational Network as a Political Economy.
Administrative Science Quarterly. 20 (June): 229–248.
Berman, Paul et al. 1977. Federal Programs Supporting Educational Change:
Factors Affecting Implementation and Continuation. April, Santa
Monica. C.A.: The Rand Corporation.
Bidault, F. and Cummings, T. 1994. Innovations Through Alliances: Expectations
and Limitations. R & D Management. 24, 1 (January): 33-45.
Bidault, Francis and Fischer, William A. 1994. Technology Transactions: Networks
Over Markets. R&D Management. 24, 4 (October): 373–386.
Bogo, Marion and Globerman, Judith. 1995. Creating Effective University–Field
Partnerships: An Analysis of Two Inter-Organization Models for Field
Education. Journal of Teaching in Social Work. 11 (1–2): 179–192.
Bollen, K. A. 1989. Structure Equations with Latent Variables. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
  144
Bollen, K. and Lennox, R. 1991. Conventional Wisdom on Measurement: A
Structural Equation Perspective. Psychological Bulletin. 110 (2): 305–
314.
Bowman, A. and Lester, J. 1990. Implementation Theory and Practice: Toward a
Third Generation. New York: HarperCollins.
Bowman, A.; Lester, J.; Goggin, M. L. and O’toole, L. J. 1987. Public Policy
Implementation: Evaluation of the Field and Agenda for Future Research.
Policy Studies Review. 7, 1: 200-217.
Brown, M. W. and Cudeek, R. 1993. Alliterative Ways of Assessing Model Fit, in
Texting Structural Equation Model. New Jersey: Sage.
Browne, Angela and Wildavsky, Aaron. 1984. Expanded Implementation:
Implementation as Exploration. 3
rd
ed. Berkeley and Los Angeles,
California: University of California Press.
Carmines, E. G. and McIver, J. P. 1981. Analyzing models with Unobserved
Variables. In Social Measurement: Current Issues. G.W. Bohrnstedt
and E.F. Borgatta, eds. Beverly Hills: Sage. Pp.118 - 154.
Cheema, G. and Rondinelli, Dennis A. 1983. Decentralization and Development:
Policy Implementation in Development Countries. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Chin, W. W. 1998. Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modeling. MIS
Quarterly. 22 (1): 1-3.
Coakes, S. J. and Steel, L. G. 2001. SPSS: Analysis Without Anguish Version 11.0
for Windows. Brisbane, Australia: John Wiley & Sons.
Coggin, Macolm. 1986. Public Policy Implementation: Evolution of the Field
and Agenda for Future Research. Review of Public Research.
7, 1: 200-216.
Cronbach, J. 1990. Essential of Psychology Testing. New York: Hanpercollishes.
Crouch, C.; Le Gales, P.; Trojilia, C. and Voelzkow, H. 2001. Local Production
System in Europe: Rise or Demise? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Danziger, J. N.; Dutton, W. H. and Kraemer, K. L. 1980. Did the Policy Fail?: The
Selective Use of Automated Information in the Policy-Making Process
Why Policy Success or Fail. Beverly Hills, California: Sage.
  145
Department of Industrial Promotion (DIP). 2007. Industrial Cluster Project.
Retrieved October 1, 2007 from http://www.dip.go.th
Edward, Corwin. 1980. Big Business and the Policy of Competition.
Westport, Conn.: Greenwod Press.
Edwards, J. R. and Bagozzi, R. P. 2000. On the Nature and Direction of
Relationships between Constructs. Psychological Methods. 5 (2): 155–
174.
Elmore, Richard F. 1979. Complexity and Control: What Legislators and
Administrators Can Do about Implementation. Public Policy Paper
No.11. Institute of Governmental Research, University of Washington.
Enright, M. 1996. Regional Clusters and Economic Development: A Research
Agenda. In Business Network: Prospects for Regional Development.
New York: De Gruyter. Pp.190–213.
Enright, Michael J. 2003. Regional Clusters: What We Know and What We should
Know. In Innovation Clusters and Interregional Competition.
Johannes Brocker et al., ed. Berlin: Springer Verlag. Pp.99 - 129.
European Commission. 2006. Reporting Intellectual Capital to Augment
Research, Development and Innovation in SMEs. Report to the
Commission of the High Level Expert Group on RICARDIS, Luxemburg,
COM. Retrieved June 23, 2006 from http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-
research/policy/capital_report_en.htm
Feser, E. J. 1998. Old and New Theories of Industry Clusters. In Clusters and
Regional Specialisation. M. Steiner, ed. London: Pion Limited. Pp.18-
40.
Feser, E. J.and Bergman, E. M. 2000. National Industry Cluster Templates: A
Framework for Applied Regional Cluster Analysis. Regional Studies.
1–19.
Finn, M. et al. 2000. Tourism and Leisure Research Methods: Data Collection,
Analysis, and Interpretation. England: Longman.
Gill, J. and Johnson, P. 1991. Research Method for Managers. London: Paul
Chapman.
  146
Grabher, G. 1993. The Weakness of Strong Ties: The Lock-in of Regional
Development in the Ruhr Area. In The Embedded Firm: On the
Socioeconomics of Industrial Network. G. Grabher, ed. London:
Routledge. Pp.255 - 277.
Gunn, Lewis A. and Hogwood, Brian W. 1984. Policy Analysis for the Real
World. New York: Oxford University Press.
Habing, B. 2003. Exploratory Factor Analysis. Retrieved December 15, 2010 from
http://www.stat.sc.edu/~habing/courses/530EFA.pdf
Hair, J. F.; Black, W. C.; Babin, B. J.; Anderson, R. E. and Tattham, R. L. 2010.
Multivariate Data Analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Practice Hall.
Hambleton, Robin. 1983. Planning Systems and Policy Implementation. Journal of
Public Policy. (October): 397–418.
Harder, M and Palumbo, D. 1981. Implementing Public Policy. USA.: Lexington
Books,
Hayduk, L.; Cumming, G; Boadu,K.; Pazdeka-Robinson, H. and Boulianne, S. 2007.
Personality and Individual Differences. (42): 841–850.
Heidenreich, M.and Krauss, G. 1998. The Baden-Wurttemberg Production and
Innovation Regime-between Past Successes and New Challenges. In
Regional Innovation Systems. H.J. Braczyk, P Cooke and M
Heidenreich, eds. London: UCL-Press. Pp.86-101.
Hellriegel, D.; Slocum, J. W. and Richard, W. W. 1983. Organizational Behavior.
3
rd
ed. New York: West Publishing.
Hoffman, Alan Nathan. 1982. An Investigation into the Relationship between
Organizational Structure and Context and Interorganizational
Network Centrality: The Case of Indianapolis Youth Service Delivery
Agencies. Doctoral dissertation, Graduate School of Business, Indiana
University.
Horowitz, J. K. 1996. Environmental Policy under a Nonmarket Discount Rate.
Ecological Economics. 16 (1): 73-78.
Hulshoff, H. E. and Snel, D. 1998. Technologische Samenwerking in de Industrie
en de Zakelijke Diensten. Zoetermeer: EIM.
  147
Jacob, D. and De Man, A. P. 1996. Cluster, Industrial Policy and Firm Strategy. A
Menu Approach. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management. 8:
425–437.
Joreskog. K. G. and Sorbom, D. 1993. Lisrel 8: Structural Equation Modeling
with the Simplist Command Language. Chicago: Software
International.
Kanlaya Vanichbuncha. 2003. High Level of Statistical Analysis. 3rd ed.
Bangkok: Department of Statistics, Faculty of Commerce and
Accountancy, Chulalongkorn University. (In Thai).
Kanlaya Vanichbuncha. 2007. Using of SPSS for Window: Data Analysis. 8th ed.
Bangkok: Department of Statistics, Faculty of Commerce and
Accountancy, Chulalongkorn University. (In Thai).
Kast, Fremont E. and Rosenzweig, James E. 1970. Organization and
Management: A System Approach. New York: Mc-Graw Hill.
Kerr, D. H. 1976. The Logic of Policy and Successful Policies. Policy Sciences. 7:
351-363.
Ketels, Christian. 2003. The Developments of the Cluster Concept-Present
Experiences and Further Development. Paper for the NRW Conference
on Clusters in Germany, Harvard Business School, November.
Kumar, R. 1996. Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners.
Melbourne, Australia: Addison Wesley Longman Australia.
Leahy, K. 2001. Multicollinearity: When the Solution is the Problem. In Data
Mining Cookbook. Olivia Parr Rud, ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc. Pp.106-108.
Libsky, M. 1980. Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in
Public Service. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Lublinski, Alf Erko. 2002. Dissertation on Concepts for Cluster-Identification
with an Application to an Alleged Aeronautics Cluster in Northern
Germany. Hamburg: June.
Mazmanian, D. and Sabatier, P. 1979. The Conditions of Effective Implementation:
A Guild to Accomplishing Policy Objectives. Policy Analysis. 5: 481-
504.
  148
Mazmanian, D. and Sabatier, P. 1983. The Implementation of Public Policy: A
Framework of Analysis. Policy Studies Journal. 8, 4: 538-567.
McLaughin, M. 1975. The Implementation Game. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
MIT Press.
Medhi Krongkaew. 1988. Economic Theories and Economic Policies
Determination: An Application in Thailand. Paper presented at the 11
th

Annual Symposium Organized by the Faculty of Economics, Thammasat
University, February 15
th
-16
th
. (In Thai).
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI). 2005a. Industrial Cluster
Project. Retrieved May 21, 2008 from http://www.meti.go.jp/english
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI). 2005b. Industrial Cluster Study
Report. Tokyo: METI.
Ministry of Industry, Thailand. 2000. Industry 2000+ Towards Global
Competition. Bangkok: MI.
Moores, S. 1987. The Theory of Street-Level Bureaucracy: A Positive Critique.
Administration & Society. 19, 1 (May): 74-94.
Muizer, A. P. and Hospers, G. J. 1998. Strategic Study Industry Clusters and
SMEs. A State-of-the-Art Study, Ministry of Economic Affairs of Italy.
Nagel, Stuart S. 1984. Public Policy: Goals, Means, and Methods. New York,
USA.: St. Martin’s Press.
Nakamura, R and Smallwood, F. 1980. The Politics of Policy Implementation.
New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Nauwelaers, C. 2003. Clusters and Clusters Polices: Elements for European
Benchmarking (The Case of Flanders and Wallonia). MERIT working
paper, University of Maastricht.
NESDB. 2003. Industrial Cluster. Retrieved October 13 2008 from
http://www.nesdb.go.th.
NESDB. 2007. The 10
th
National Economics and Social Development Board.
Retrieved September 23, 2010 from http://www.nesdb.go.th.
NESDB. 2008. Cluster Development: Concept and Development. Retrieved
October 12, 2010 from http://www.nesdb.go.th.
  149
NESDB. 2010. Cluster Concept. Retrieved July 8
th
, 2010 from
http://www.nesdb.go.th
Neuman, W. L. 2003. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Nonglak Wiratchai. 1994. Structural Causal Relationship (LISREL): Statistics
for Research of Social Science and Behavioral Science. Bangkok:
Chulalongkong University Printing. (In Thai).
Nueno, P. and Osterveld, J. 1988. Managing Technology Alliances. Long Range
Planning. 21: 11–17.
Numchai Suppareakchaisakul. 2009. Multilevel Analysis by HLM. Bangkok:
Behavioral Science Research Institute, Srinakharinwirot Universtiy. (In
Thai).
Nunnally, J. C. 1978. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
OECD. 2006. Definition of Cluster. Retrieved September 10, 2008 from
http://www.oecd.org
OSMEP. 2001. Definition of SMEs. Retrieved September 10, 2010 from
http://www.osmep.go.th
OSMEP, 2010. The White Paper on Small and Medium Enterprises of Thailand
in 2009 and Trends 2010. Retrieved December 12, 2010 from
http://www.osmep.go.th
Patton, M Q. 1979. Evaluation of Program Implementation. Evaluation Studies
Reviews Annuals. 4: 318-346.
Petter, S. and Straub, D. 2007. Specifying Formative Constructs in Information
Systems Research. MIS Quarterly. 31 (4): 623–656.
Petter, S.; Straub, D. and Rai, A. 2007. Specific Formative Constructs in IS
Research. MIS Quarterly. (31: 4, December): 623-656.
Porter, M. 1990. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. London: Macmilla
Appendix n.
Porter, M. 1997. How Much Does Industry Matter, Really? Strategic Management
Journal. 18 (Summer Special Issue): 15-30.
Porter, M. 1998a. Clusters and the New Economics of Competition. Harvard
Business Review. (December): 77–90.
  150
Porter, M. 1998b. On Competitive Advantage of Nations. London: Macmillan.
Porter, M. 2003. Locations, Clusters and Company Strategy. In SMEs in the Age
of Globalization. David B Audretsch, ed. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Pp.15-31.
Porter, M. E. and Ketels, C. 2003. UK Competitiveness: Moving to the Next
Stage. DTI Economic Paper No.3.
Pressman, Jeffrey L. and Wildavsky, Aaron. 1973. Implementation. 2
nd
ed.
Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
Pressman, J. and Wildavski, A. 1979. Implementation. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Pressman, J. and Wildavski, A. 1984. Implementation: How Great Expectations
in Washington are Dashed in Oakland; Or, Why It's Amazing that
Federal Programs Work at All. USA.: University of California Press.
Ravn, Lis and Wichard, Petersen. 2005. Cluster Development in Hungary: A
Study of the Possibility for the Automotive Industry and the Wood
and Furniture Industry to Enhance Regional Sustainable
Development. Roskilde: Departement of Environment, Technology and
Social Studies, Roskilde Universtiy, August.
Rietveld, T. and Van Hout, R. 1993. Statistical Techniques for the Study of
Language and Language Behavior. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rivlin, A. M. 1971. Systematic Thinking for Social Action. Washington, DC.:
The Brookings Institution.
Roelandt, T. and Den Hertog, P. 1997. Cluster Analysis and Cluster Policy in the
Netherlands. OECD Workshop Position Paper on Cluster Analyses and
Cluster-Based Policies (Amsterdam, 10-11.10.97). Paris: OECD Industrial
Cluster Focus Group.
Roelandt, T. and Den Hertog, P. 1999. Cluster Analysis and Cluster-Based Policy
Making in OECD Countries: An Introduction to the Theme. In Boosting
Innovation: The Cluster Approach. OECD. Paris: OECD. Ch.1 Pp.9–
23.
Roelandt, T. P.; Den Hertog, J.; Van Sinderen, J. and Vollaard, B. 1997. Cluster
Analysis and Cluster Policy in the Netherlands. Paper Presented at the
OECD-Workshot, Edward Elgar.
  151
Rosenfeld, S. 1997. Bringing Business Clusters into the Mainstream of Economic
Development. European Planning Studies. 51: 3–23.
Rumjuan Benjasiri. 2002. The Implementation of Public Sector Standard
Management System and Outcomes (PSO): A Case Study of the
Community Development Department. Doctoral dissertation, National
Institute of Development Administration.
Sabatier, Paul and Mazmanian, Daniel. 1979. The Conditions of Effective
Implementation. In Policy Analysis. Davis, California: Institute of
Governmental Affairs, August. Pp.481-504.
Sabatier, Paul and Mazmanian, Daniel. 1980. The Implementation of Public Policy:
A Framework of Analysis. Policy Studies Journal Contents. Special
Issue: 538-560.
Sabatier, Paul and Mazmanian, Daniel. 1983. Policy Implementation. Encyclopedia
of Policy Studies. Ed.Stuart Nagel. New.York: Marcel Dekker. Pp.143-
169.
Sabherwal, R. and Becerra, F. 2003. An Empirical Study of the Effect of Knowledge
Management Processes at Individual, Group and Organizational Level.
Decision Science. 34 (2): 225–260.
Saris. W. E. and Strenkhorst, L. H. 1984. Causal Modeling Non Experimental
Research: An Introduction to the Lisrel Approach. Dissertation
Abstract International. 47 (7): 2261-A.
Schermerhorn, John R. 1989. Management for Productivity. 3
rd
ed. New York:
Willy.
Schneider, Ann. 1982. Studying Policy Implementation. Londen: Routledge.
Simmie, J. and Sennett, J. 1999. Innovation in the London Metropolitan Region. In
Brookes School of Planning. D Hart, J Simmie, P Wood and J Sennett.
Working Paper 182. Ch.4.
Smith, Thomas B. 1973. The Policy Implementation Process. In Policy Science,
School of Political Science and Public Administration. New Zealand:
Victoria University of Wellington. Pp.97-209.
Sorg, J. 1983. A Typology of Implementation Behaviors of Street-Level
Bureaucrats. Policy Studies Review. 2 (February, 3): 392-406.
  152
Suchitra Punyaratabandhu. 2003. Research Methodology for Public
Administration. 7
th
ed. Bangkok: Senatham Printing.
Sudayu Teeravanittrakul. 2004. The Promotion of Organizational Citizenship
Behaviors for Human Resource Sustainable Development in Organization.
Educational Journal. 16, 1 (June-October): 15-28. (In Thai).
Swann, G. M. P. and Prevezer, M. 1996. A Comparison of the Dynamics of
Industrial Clustering in Computing and Biotechnology. Research Policy.
25: 1139–1157.
Swann, G. M. P.; Prevezer, M. and Stout, D., eds. 1998. The Dynamics of
Industrial Clustering: International Comparisons in Computing and
Biotechnology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tambunlertchai, S. 2002. “Tracking Manufacturing Performance: A Review of
Industrial Sector in Thailand.” UNIDO Bangkok-Occasional Papers
Series, Bangkok.
Thawilwade Bureekul. 1998. Major Factors Affecting Industrial Hazardous
Waste Policy Implementation in Central Thailand. Doctoral
dissertation, National Institute of Development Administration.
Thongchai Santiwong. 1991. Planning. Bangkok: Thai Wattana Panid.
Tientenberg, T. 1992. Environmental and Natural Resource Economics. New
York: Harper Collins.
Ullman, J. B. 2006. Structural Equation Modeling. In B.G. Tabachnick and L.S.
Fidell, eds. Using Multivariate Statistics. 5th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Pp.653-771.
Van den Berg, L.; Braun, E. and Van Winden, W. 2001. Growth Clusters in
European Cities: An Integral Approach. Urban Studies. 38, 1: 186–206.
Van Horn, C. E. 1979. Policy Implementation in the Federal System, National
Goals and Local Implementers. Lexington, M.A.: Massachusetts, Heath
& Company.
Van Meter, D. and Van Horn, C. 1975. The Policy Implementation Process: A
Conceptual Framework. Administration & Society Review. (February)
445-487.
  153
Viratchai, N. 1994. LISREL: Statistical Analysis for Social and Behavioral
Research. 2
nd
ed. Bangkok: Chulalongkong University.
Viratchai, N. 1999. LISREL: Statistical Analysis for Research. 3
rd
ed. Bangkok:
Chulalongkong University.
Voradej Chandarasorn,. 1984. Policy Deployment: Model and Value. Bangkok:
National Institute of Development Administration.
Williams, W. 1971. Social Policy Research and Analysis: The Experience in the
Federal Social Agencies. New York: American Elsevier Publishing Co.
Wittrock, Bjorn and De Leon, Peter. 1986. Policy as a Moving Target: A Call for
Conceptual Realism. Review of Policy Research. 6, 1 (August): 44-60.
Yinyon Senitwong Na Ayudhya. 2001. Major Factor Influencing the Healthy City
Policy Implementation. Doctoral dissertation, National Institute of
Development Administration.
Zerbe, Richard and Dively, Dwight. 1994. Benefit-Cost Analysis in Theory and
Practice. New York: Harper Collins College Pubs.









APPENDIX A

QUESTIONNAIRE
(ENGLISH)

















155

QUESTIONNAIRE
(ENGLISH)

Part 1 General Information of Questionnaire’s Respondent

Please indicate 9 in the level of your opinion and fill in information in the provided
area as your opinion.
Name - Surname Title
Company / Agency
Address ____________________________Number
Moo ___________ Soi ________________ Tanon
Tambon ______________________ Amphur _____________
Province
Telephone ____________________ Fax
No. 1 Gender
[ ] 1. Male [ ] 2. Female
No. 2 Age ___________ years
No. 3 Level of education
[ ] 1. Elementary [ ] 2. Junior high school
[ ] 3. High school [ ] 4. Associate degree
[ ] 5. Bachelor degree [ ] 6. Master degree
[ ] 7. PhD [ ] 8. Others (Please specify)
No. 4 Your title in your industrial cluster
[ ] 1. Chairman
[ ] 2. Committee members, please specify
[ ] 1. Marketing Section [ ] 2. Production Section
[ ] 3. Public Relation Section [ ] 4. Research and Development Section
[ ] 5. Training Section [ ] 6. Secretary Section
[ ] 7. Others (please specify)
[ ] 3. Member


156
No. 5 Years of establishment of your company, B.E.
No. 6 What is a kind of registration that your enterprise signs up for?
[ ] 1. Natural person [ ] 2. Cooperate
[ ] 3. Company Limited [ ] 4. Others (Please specific)
No. 7 Characteristics of your enterprise’s investment
[ ] 1. All Thai investment
[ ] 2. Joint venture with foreigners, by proportion of
Thai investment percent
Foreign investment percent
Comprised of Citizenship __________ Proportion _______ percent
Citizenship __________ Proportion _______ percent
Citizenship __________ Proportion _______ percent
No. 8 How is the tendency of total selling volume from B.E. 2548 - 2550?
[ ] 1. Increasing [ ] 2. Stable [ ] 3. Decreasing
Reason
No. 9 How is the tendency of net profit from B.E. 2548 - 2550?
[ ] 1. Increasing [ ] 2. Stable [ ] 3. Decreasing
Reason
No. 10 Your enterprise has a number of labors at 30
th
September 2007 equals to
, comprised of
10.1 Numbers of employees in production department equal to____________
10.2 Numbers of employees outside production department equal to________
10.3 Numbers of skilled labors equal to _______ or percent
10.4 Numbers of skilled labor outside production department equal to _____or
_______ percent
Remarks: Employees in production department are such as factory manager, factory
engineer, controller, engine controller, employee in production line.
Employees outside production department are such administration department,
human resource department, marketing department, accounting department.


157
No. 11 Labors in your enterprise compose of
Numbers of labors in your province equal to _________ or ______ percent
Numbers of labors outside your province equal to _____or ______ percent
Numbers of foreign labors equal to or ______ percent
No. 12 Numbers of main products in your enterprise equal to___________, such as



No. 13 Where is the source of production? What is the percentage?
13.1 Within the province, percent, utilized raw materials, for example,
__________________________________________________________
13.2 Outside the province, percent, utilized raw materials, for example,
(please specific provinces)
13.3 Import from foreign countries, percent, utilized raw material, for
example,_____________________(please specific countries)
No. 14 Proportion of your selling product.
[ ] 1. Domestic percent
[ ] 2. Foreign countries percent, Example of export product
, To which countries
No. 15 What are the kinds of problems that your enterprise is facing? (Could be more
than one answer)
[ ] 1. Scarcity of raw material in domestic, need to import from abroad
[ ] 2. Scarcity of quality labor
[ ] 3. Scarcity of specialized worker
[ ] 4. Scarcity of technological knowledge and new innovation
[ ] 5. Scarcity of marketing information
[ ] 6. Scarcity of fund for managing business
[ ] 7. High cost of running business
[ ] 8. Problems of high competition in pricing
[ ] 9. Small size of product market

158
[ ] 10. Problem of imitated design and product development
[ ] 11. Others (Please specific)



No. 16 Who are the ones who established your industrial cluster? (Could be more than
one answer)
[ ] 1. General citizens / enterprises
[ ] 2. Private organizations such as provincial chamber of commerce,
agricultural group, professional group, etc.
(Please specific)
[ ] 3. Citizenship representatives such as members of the house of
representative, members of provincial council, etc.
(Please specific)
[ ] 4. Local Administrative Organization ex. Municipality, Sub District
Administration Organization, etc.
(Please specific)
[ ] 5. Department of Industrial Promotion (Please specific)
[ ] 6. Other governmental units (Please specific)
Please explain in details of the source of the project

No 17 Please identify obstacles and developed measure for running the project
Obstacle

Developed measure


Part 2 Information of Participation of Stakeholders
Please indicate 9 in the level of your opinion and fill in information in the provided
area as your opinion.

159
No. 1 – 16 Did Citizens in That area or Private Organizations Participate in Initiative
and Processing the Industrial Cluster Project? And How? (Please use symbol “9” in
Provided Box)

Level of Agreement Participation of
Stakeholders 5 4 3 2 1 0
Step of initiated project
1. Identify problem
2. Providing information
3. Participation in setting
up projects

Step of running the
project

4. Identify problem
5. Providing information
6. Participation in setting
up projects

7. Participation in project
operation

8. Participation in
monitoring and
evaluation

Step of initiated project
9. Identify problem
10. Providing information
11. Participation in
setting up projects

Step of running the
project

12. Identify problem
13. Providing information

160
Level of Agreement Participation of
Stakeholders 5 4 3 2 1 0
14. Participation in
setting up projects

15. Participation in
project operation

16. Participation in
monitoring and
evaluation


No. 17
Level of Agreement Measurement
5 4 3 2 1
In operating the project, the level of
cooperation among related persons in the
project.


No. 18 Please identify details of activities that created for developing your industrial
cluster project. (In case of this question, participation of stockholders is
considered in operated activities compared to total activities as percentage)

Activities Operate Non-operate
1. Initiating of developing industrial cluster
2. Creating cluster development agents (CDA) in
order to facilitate the development of industrial
cluster


161
Activities Operate Non-operate
3. Scoping term of studies and research of industrial
cluster project

4. Gathering information and studying
characteristics of industrial cluster

5. Analyzing the strength, weakness, opportunity,
and threat of industrial cluster

6. Creating the planning of controlling and
operating cluster implementation

7. Initiating the seminar of opening industrial
cluster and public relationship industrial cluster
project

8. Selecting cluster members to join industrial
cluster project

9. Creating the leader of industrial cluster
10. Creating workshop meetings
11. Adapting industrial cluster plan to the real
practice

12. Explaining and disseminating knowledge and
cognition about the development of industrial
cluster

13. Taking care and managing the operating as well
as providing fundamental consultancy to
stockholders

14. Initiating a connected activity
15. Selecting a pilot project
16. Creating academic trainings
17. Creating workshop trainings
Total


162
Part 3 Information Related to Management Ability of Department of Industrial
Promotion (DIP)

Please indicate 9 in the level of your opinion and fill in information in the provided
area as your opinion.

No. 19
Level of Agreement Measurement
5 4 3 2 1 0
The level of the delay of budget
reimbursement of Department of
Industrial Promotion


No. 20 – 21
Level of Agreement Measurement
3 2 1
Clarity of hierarchical structure
Responsibility of responsible
workers


No. 22
Level of Agreement Measurement
5 4 3 2 1
Cooperation of related
workers within the project


No. 23 – 49 According to the following of the implementation on your industrial
cluster in fiscal year 2007, it was found that your industrial cluster had done 27
activities. Please fill up the percentage of the success your activities that appeared as
your cluster’s plan.

163
Activities
Percentage of
the Success
1. Hiring consultant or cluster development agent (CDA)
2. Creating CDA team for developing industrial cluster
3. Gathering information and study about industrial cluster
4. Analyzing strengths, weakness, opportunities, and threats
5. Doing plan for controlling the implementation
6. Initiating opening seminar and public relationship of industrial
cluster

7. Selecting cluster members
8. Initiating a connected activity
9. Initiating workshop meeting
10. Transforming industrial cluster planning to the real practice
11. Taking care and managing the implementation as well as
fundamental consultancy for stockholders

12. Initiating academic training
13. Managing workshop training
14. Initiating domestic studying activities
15. Initiating foreign studying activities
16. Initiating domestic exhibition
17. Initiating international exhibition
18. Initiating cluster branding
19. Coordinating the development of packaging design
20. Initiating cluster website
21. Establishing the cluster joint venture company
22. Signing up for cooperation with domestic organizations
23. Signing up for cooperation with foreign organizations
24. Monitoring and following the implementation of a cluster
development agent (CDA) or a project consultant


164
Activities
Percentage of
the Success
25. Initiating questionnaires and preparing for receiving other
opinions

26. Monitoring and following the implementation of industrial
cluster

27. Reporting the studying result of the success for implementing
industrial cluster and circulating to stockholders for benefic


Part 4 Information of Perceived Support from Department of Industrial
Promotion (DIP)

No. 50 – 52 Percentage of allocated budget to proposed budget for developing
industrial cluster.

Level of Opinion Measurement
5 4 3 2 1
Level of sufficiency of allocated budget for
implementing the project

Level of sufficiency of government officials
who are responsible for implementing the
project

Level of sufficiency of office instruments that
has been used in the project








165
Part 5 Clarity of Goal

No. 53 Percentage of allocated budget from DIP to proposed budget by industrial cluster

Level of Opinion Measurement
5 4 3 2 1
Level of knowledge and cognition
about industrial cluster before
joining industrial cluster


No. 54 – 55 Level of your cognition and understanding about the objectives, the
process, and the goal of implementation on the industrial cluster project from the very
low level (score = 1 point) to the very high level (score = 10 points).

Level of Understanding
Maximum Minimum Points
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
1. Project Goal
2. Implementation Procedure
3. Project Goal

No. 56 – 60 Please evaluate enterprises who join your industrial cluster project in
fiscal year 2007 by using the symbol “9” in provided box from minimum (score = 1
point) to maximum (score = 10 points).

Maximum Score Mininum
Items
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
1. Knowledge and
understanding of industrial
cluster


166
Maximum Score Mininum
Items
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
2. Considering the importance of
industrial cluster

3. Ability for implementing
industrial cluster
activities by cooperation
among cluster members

4. Enthusiasm of doing cluster’s
activities

5. Reliability among cluster
members

6. Helping each others
among cluster members


Part 6 Ability of Cluster Members and Policy Implementers

No. 61 – 62
Level of Opinion Measurement
3 2 1
Level of knowledge about
industrial cluster development
of government officials who
responsible for the project

Level of experience about
industrial cluster of government
officials who responsible for
the project








167
No. 63
Level of Opinion Measurement
5 4 3 2 1
Level of benefit of received
information can apply for
implementing the project


No. 64 - 76 How does your opinion regarding your cluster development agent (CDA)
should have some important qualifications? Please identify from minimum (score = 1
point) to maximum (score = 10 points) as your opinion.

Level of Importance
Max Min
Qualifications
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
1. Your CDA is a person who
considers overall benefit and
needs of stockholders in the
industry

2. Your CDA has ability for
planning

3. Your CDA has a deep
knowledge in the concept
of industrial cluster

4. Your CDA understand the
objectives of industrial cluster
project

5. Your CDA has ability in
coordinating / listening
to opinions as well as giving
consultancies and services to
develop industrial cluster

6. Your CDA has vision and
creative thinking for analyzing
his/her industrial cluster


168
Level of Importance
Max Min
Qualifications
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
7. Your CDA has self-confidence
and dares to express his/her
opinion

8. Your CDA has good humans
relationship and personality

9. Your CDA has ability to
transmit missions to the cluster
leader and coordinator

10. Your CDA has ability to
report the studying result

11. Your CDA has a managing
ability and is able to
implement the development
of industrial cluster steps by
steps

12. Your CDA has an experience
in implementing industrial
cluster project

13. Your CDA is responsible for
implementing industrial
cluster project











169
Part 7 Information Related to Exchange Information and to Utilize Information
(Communication)

No. 77 - 78
Level of Opinion
Max Min
Measurements
5 4 3 2 1
Level of received information about
developing industrial cluster from
organizations within Ministry of Industry

Level of received information about
developing industrial cluster from related
public and private organizations


No. 79 - 82 Please evaluate enterprises on industrial cluster project in fiscal year 2007
in different points by using symbol “ 9 ” in provided box from minimum (score = 1
point) to maximum (score = 10 points).

Min Score Max
Items
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To exchange information
among cluster members

To communicate and / or to
distribute information among
cluster members

To exchange technology in
production

To express opinion related to
develop industrial cluster





170
Part 8 Information Related to Quality of the Project

No. 83
Much better Level of opinion Little better Measurement
3 2 1
Level of characteristics of
industrial cluster compared
to last year. What is your
opinion?


No. 84
Level of Opinion
Max Min
Measurement
5 4 3 2 1
Level of developed rapidity in your
industrial cluster


No. 85 – 128 Please identify scores by level of satisfaction in services of DIP officials
from participating industrial cluster in fiscal year 2007 by using symbol “ 9” in
provided box. Level of satisfaction starts from minimum (score = 1 point) to high
score (score = 10 points)

Min Satisfaction in services of DIP officials Max
Items
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Getting into services
1.1 DIP officials have time for
providing consultancy to
cluster members

1.2 To set time for
implementing activities


171
Min Satisfaction in services of DIP officials Max
Items
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1.3 To set location for
implementing activities

2. Communication /
Coordination

2.1 Ability to explain cluster
members to have better
understanding about the
development of industrial
cluster

2.2 Ability to transfer missions
to cluster members in order
to implement the development
of industrial cluster
continuously

2.3 To provide beneficial
information for developing
industrial cluster to cluster
Members




2.4 The rapidity of
communication in
coordination with cluster
members in the project

2.5 Coordination with related
organization about the
development of industrial cluster

3. Knowledge and ability
3.1 Knowledge and ability of
the development of industrial
cluster

3.2 Expertise of the
development in industrial
cluster


172
Min Satisfaction in services of DIP officials Max
Items
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
3.3 Knowledge about the
industry that is developed

4. Helping each others
4.1 Human relationships with
other cluster members

4.2 Paying attention for
implementation the project

4.3 Enthusiasm on
implementation the project

5. Reliability
5.1 Gathering information and
studying characteristics of
industrial cluster

5.2 Supporting on initiation of
the clearly industrial cluster
development plan

5.3 Taking care of work
implementation followed to
the settle plan

5.4 Taking care of work
implementation within the
working period indicated in
the work plan

6. Believes
6.1 Regularity of participation
in activities for the
development of industrial
cluster

6.2 To develop industrial
cluster correspondent to the
project’s objectives


173
Min Satisfaction in services of DIP officials Max
Items
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
7. Response to members
7.1 The rapidity of response to
cluster members

7.2 The rapidity of solving
member’s problems

8. Stable and security
8.1 Taking care of establishing
the cluster committees or the
cluster leader

8.2 Impulse your industrial
cluster in the plan / strategy
in any level

8.3 Following the result of
implementation continuously

8.4 Evaluation of the result on
implemented activities

9. To create service familiarly
9.1 Public relationship on the
industrial cluster project in
order to inform stockholders
getting to know of the project

9.2 Public relationship of
implemented activities to
cluster members and public

10. Understanding and getting to
know cluster members

10.1 To coordinate in consultancy of
implemented activities

10.2 To facilitate in implemented
activities of industrial cluster



174
No. 129 – 145 Please indicate score by level of your satisfaction on service of your
project consultant from participated activities in fiscal year 2007 by using symbol “ 9 ”
in provided box. Level of satisfaction starts from minimum (score = 1 point) to high
score (score = 10 points). In case, if your industrial cluster does not have consultant,
please skip this question.

Min Satisfaction in services of consultant Max
Items
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Getting into services
1.1 Consultant has time for
providing consultancy to
cluster members

1.2 To set time for implementing
activities

1.3 To set location for
implementing activities

2. Communication /
Coordination

2.1 Ability to explain cluster
members to have better
understanding about the
development of industrial
cluster

2.2 Ability to transfer missions
to cluster members in order
to implement the development
of industrial cluster
continuously

2.3 To provide beneficial
information for developing
industrial cluster to cluster
Members



175
Min Satisfaction in services of consultant Max
Items
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2.4 The rapidity of
communication in coordination
with cluster members in the
project

2.5 Coordination with related
organization about the
development of industrial cluster

3. Knowledge and ability
3.1 Knowledge and ability of
the development of industrial
cluster

3.2 Expertise of the
development in industrial
cluster

3.3 Knowledge about the
industry that is developed

4. Helping each others
4.1 Human relationships with
other cluster members

4.2 Paying attention for
implementation the project

4.3 Enthusiasm on
implementation the project

5. Reliability
5.1 Gathering information and
studying characteristics of
industrial cluster

5.2 Supporting on initiation of
the clearly industrial cluster
development plan



176
Min Satisfaction in services of consultant Max
Items
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
5.3 Taking care of work
implementation followed to
the settle plan

5.4 Taking care of work
implementation within the
working period indicated in
the work plan

6. Believes
6.1 Regularity of participation
in activities for the
development of industrial
cluster

6.2 To develop industrial
cluster correspondent to the
project’s objectives

7. Response to members
7.1 The rapidity of response to
cluster members

7.2 The rapidity of solving
member’s problems

8. Stable and security
8.1 Taking care of establishing
the cluster committees or the
cluster leader

8.2 Impulse your industrial
cluster in the plan / strategy
in any level

8.3 Following the result of
implementation continuously

8.4 Evaluation of the result on
implemented activities


177
Min Satisfaction in services of consultant Max
Items
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
9. To create service familiarly
9.1 Public relationship on the
industrial cluster project in
order to inform stockholders
getting to know of the project

9.2 Public relationship of
implemented activities to
cluster members and public

10. Understanding and
getting to know cluster
members

10.1 To coordinate in
consultancy of implemented
activities

10.2 To facilitate in
implemented activities of
industrial cluster





178
Part 9 Information Related to Effectiveness on Project Implementation

No. 146 - 150
Score
Before joining the project
Min Max
After joining the project
Min Max
Items
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Realization and seeing the
importance on domestic
industrial cluster

2. Realization and seeing the
importance on international
industrial cluster

3. Understanding about the
development of industrial
cluster

4. Industrial cluster has a benefit
to your enterprise

5. Industrial cluster has a benefit
to your industrial cluster


1
7
8



179
No. 151 According to the following on the implementation in the past, it was found
that your industrial cluster in fiscal year 2007 had done 27 activities. Please check the
status (percentage of the success) on activities’ implementation as you indicated in
your work plan.

Activities
Percentage of
the Success
1. Hiring consultant or cluster development agent (CDA)
2. Creating the team of cluster development agent (CDA) for
developing industrial cluster

3. Gathering information and studying the characteristics of your
industrial cluster

4. Analyzing the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of your
industrial cluster

5. Initiating plans for work controlling
6. Initiating the opening seminar and public relationship of your
industrial cluster project

7. Selecting cluster members who join the project
8. Initiating a connected activity
9. Initiating workshop meetings
10. Transforming the plan of the developing on industrial cluster
project to the real practice

11. Taking care and managing the operation as well as providing
fundamental working consultancy of stakeholders

12. Initiating academic trainings
13. Initiating workshop trainings
14. Initiating studying activities in domestic
15. Initiating studying activities aboard
16. Initiating domestic exhibition

180
Activities
Percentage of
the Success
17. Initiating international exhibition
18. Initiating joined product branding
19. Coordinating in product design of the cluster
20. Initiating cluster website
21. Initiating jointed venture company
22. Signing up the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
domestically

23. Signing up the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
internationally

24. Monitoring and following on the implementation of CDA
25. Initiating questionnaires and preparing points in order to listen
to other opinions

26. Monitoring and following the implementation of industrial
cluster

27. Reporting the studying result on the implementation of industrial
cluster and informing to stakeholders for further beneficial uses


No. 152
Max Level of Opinion Min Measurement
3 2 1
Level of clarity of your
industrial cluster in fiscal year
2007


Part 10 Information Related to Efficiency of Project Implementation
B/C Ratio received from DIP database



181






APPENDIX B

QUESTIONNAIRE
(THAI)













182


แบบสอบถาม


สวนที่ 1 ขอมูลทั่วไปของผูใหสัมภาษณ

คําชี้แจง โปรดทําเครื่องหมาย 9 ลงในชองตามระดับความเห็นของทาน และโปรดกรอก
ขอความตามความเห็นของทาน
ชื่อ-นามสกุลผู ใหขอมูล ตําแหนง
ชื่อสถานประกอบการ
ที่ตั้งของสถานประกอบการ _________________________________ เลขที่
หมู ___________ ซอย ______________________ ถนน
ตําบล ______________________ อําเภอ ____________________ จังหวัด
โทรศัพท _____________________________________ โทรสาร
ขอ 1. เพศ
[ ] 1. ชาย [ ] 2. หญิง
ขอ 2. อายุ ___________ ป
ขอ 3. ระดับการศึกษาสูงสุด
[ ] 1. ประถมศึกษา [ ] 2. มัธยมศึกษาตอนต น
[ ] 3. มัธยมศึกษาตอนปลาย/ปวช. [ ] 4. ปวส./ปวท./อนุปริญญา
[ ] 5. ปริญญาตรี [ ] 6. ปริญญาโท
[ ] 7. ปริญญาเอก [ ] 8. อื่ นๆ (โปรดระบุ)
ขอ 4. ตําแหน งของท านในกลุมอุตสาหกรรมนี้
[ ] 1. ประธาน
[ ] 2. คณะกรรมการ โปรดระบุตําแหน งของทาน
[ ] 2.1 ฝ ายการตลาด [ ] 2.2 ฝ ายการผลิต
[ ] 2.3 ฝ ายประชาสัมพันธ [ ] 2.4 ฝ ายวิจัยและพัฒนา
[ ] 2.5 ฝ ายฝกอบรม [ ] 2.6 เลขานุการ
[ ] 2.7 อื่ น ๆ (โปรดระบุ)
[ ] 3. สมาชิ ก
 


183

ขอ 5. สถานประกอบการของท านไดเริ่มดําเนินการตั้งแต ป พ.ศ.
ขอ 6. สถานประกอบการของท านจดทะเบียนในรูปแบบใด
[ ] 1. บุคคลธรรมดา [ ] 2. ห างหุ นสวน
[ ] 3. บริษัทจํากัด [ ] 4. อื่น ๆ (โปรดระบุ)
ขอ 7. ลักษณะการลงทุ นของสถานประกอบการของท านเป นแบบใด
[ ] 1. เปนการลงทุ นของคนไทยทั้งหมด
[ ] 2. เปนการรวมลงทุนกั บคนตางชาติ โดยมีการลงทุ นของ
คนไทย รอยละ
ตางชาติ รอยละ
ประกอบดวยหุนของคนสัญชาติ รอยละ
สัญชาติ รอยละ
สัญชาติ รอยละ
ขอ 8. ยอดขายรวมตั้งแต ป พ.ศ. 2548-2550 มีแนวโนมอย างไร
[ ] 1. เพิ่มขึ้ น [ ] 2. คงที่ [ ] 3. ลดลง
เนื่องจาก
ขอ 9. กําไรสุทธิตั้งแต ป พ.ศ. 2548-2550 มีแนวโน มอยางไร
[ ] 1. เพิ่มขึ้ น [ ] 2. คงที่ [ ] 3. ลดลง
เนื่องจาก
ขอ 10. สถานประกอบการของท านมีจํานวนแรงงาน ณ วันที่ 30 กันยายน พ.ศ. 2550
ทั้งหมด คน ประกอบดวย
10.1 พนั กงานลูกจ างฝ ายผลิตจํานวน คน
10.2 พนั กงานลูกจ างนอกฝายผลิตจํานวน คน
10.3 แรงงานฝายผลิตที่ มีทั กษะจํ านวน คน หรือ รอยละ
10.4 แรงงานนอกฝายผลิตที่มีทั กษะจํานวน คน หรือ รอยละ
หมายเหตุ : พนักงานลู กจางฝ ายผลิ ตหรื อโรงงาน ไดแก ผูจัดการโรงงาน วิ ศวกรโรงงานหัวหนาผู
ควบคุมงาน ผูควบคุมเครื่องจักร ลูกจางที่ทํางานในกระบวนการผลิต
พนักงานลูกจางที่ไมใชฝายผลิ ต ไดแก ฝายบริหาร ฝายบุคคล ฝายขาย/บริการฝายบัญชี
ขอ 11. แรงงานในสถานประกอบการของท าน ประกอบดวย
แรงงานในจั งหวัด จํานวน คน หรือ รอยละ
แรงงานตางจั งหวัด จํ านวน คน หรือ รอยละ
แรงงานตางชาติ จํานวน คน หรือ รอยละ


184

ขอ 12. สถานประกอบการของท านผลิตสินคาหลั กจํานวน ชนิด ไดแก (โปรดระบุ)



ขอ 13. วัตถุดิบที่ใชในการผลิตมาจากแหลงใด คิดเปนมูลคารอยละเท าไร
13.1 ภายในจั งหวัด รอยละ __ วัตถุดิบที่ใช ไดแก
13.2 ตางจั งหวัด รอยละ วัตถุดิบที่ใช ไดแก
(โปรดระบุจังหวัดที่นํ าเขา)
13.3 นําเขาจากตางประเทศ รอยละ วัตถุดิบที่ใช ไดแก
(โปรดระบุประเทศที่ นําเข า)
ขอ 14. สัดสวนของสิ นคาที่ท านจํ าหน าย
[ ] 1. ในประเทศ รอยละ
[ ] 2. ต างประเทศ รอยละ โดยสินค าที่ส งออก ไดแก
สงออกไปยังประเทศ
ขอ 15. การประกอบกิ จการของทานประสบปญหาประการใดบาง (ตอบไดมากกวา 1 ขอ)
[ ] 1. ขาดแคลนวัตถุดิบภายในประเทศตองทําการนําเขาวัตถุดิบจากตางประเทศ
[ ] 2. ขาดแคลนแรงงานที่ มีคุณภาพ
[ ] 3. ขาดแคลนผูเชี่ยวชาญเฉพาะทาง
[ ] 4. ขาดแคลนความรู ทางเทคโนโลยีและนวัตกรรมใหม ๆ
[ ] 5. ขาดแคลนขอมูลทางการตลาด
[ ] 6. ขาดเงิ นทุ นในการประกอบกิจการ
[ ] 7. ต นทุ นการดําเนินงานสูง
[ ] 8. ปญหาการแขงขันที่ รุนแรงทางดานราคา
[ ] 9. ตลาดสินคามีขนาดเล็ก
[ ] 10. ปญหาดานการออกแบบและพั ฒนาผลิตภั ณฑ
[ ] 11. อื่น ๆ (โปรดระบุ)





185

ขอ 16. ใครเปนผูริเริ่มดําเนิ นงานการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรมนี้ (ระบุไดมากกว า 1 ขอ)
[ ] 1. ประชาชน / วิสาหกิ จ
[ ] 2. องคกรเอกชน เชน หอการคาจังหวัด, กลุมสหกรณ, กลุมอาชี พตาง ๆ ฯลฯ
(โปรดระบุ)
[ ] 3. ผูแทนประชาชน เชน สมาชิกสภาผูแทนราษฎร, สมาชิ กสภาจั งหวัด ฯลฯ
(โปรดระบุ)
[ ] 4. องคการบริหารสวนทองถิ่ น เชน เทศบาล, องคกรบริหารสวนตําบล ฯลฯ
(โปรดระบุ)
[ ] 5. ศูนยภาค/กรมส งเสริมอุตสาหกรรม (โปรดระบุ)
[ ] 6. สวนราชการอื่ น ๆ (โปรดระบุ)
โปรดอธิบายรายละเอี ยดที่มาของโครงการโดยสรุป



ขอ 17. โปรดระบุปญหาและแนวทางการแกไขในการดําเนินงานโครงการ ฯ
ปญหา

แนวทางการแกไข















186

สวนที่ 2 ขอมูลการมีส วนรวมของผูมีสวนเกี่ยวของ (Participation of Stackholders)

คําชี้แจง โปรดทําเครื่องหมาย 9 ลงในช องตามระดับความเห็นของทาน และโปรดกรอก
ขอความตามความเห็นของทาน

ขอ 1 – 16 ประชาชนในพื้ นที่และองคกรเอกชนมีส วนร วมในการริ เริ่ มและดําเนินงานใน
โครงการฯ หรื อไม อยางไร (โปรดใสเครื่องหมาย 9 ในชองที่ กําหนดไว)

ระดับความเห็น การมี สวนรวมของ
ประชาชนในพื้นที่ 5 4 3 2 1 0
ขั้นการริเริ่มโครงการฯ

1. การชี้ปญหา
2. การใหขอมู ล
3. การรวมจัดทําโครงการ ฯ
ขั้นการดําเนิ นงานใน
โครงการ ฯ

4. การชี้ปญหา
5. การใหขอมู ล
6. การรวมจัดทําโครงการ ฯ
7. การรวมปฏิบัติงาน
8. การมีสวนรวมในการ
ติดตามประเมิ นผล

ขั้นการริเริ่มโครงการฯ

9. การชี้ปญหา
10. การใหขอมูล
11.การรวมจั ดทําโครงการ ฯ
ขั้นการดําเนิ นงานใน
โครงการ ฯ

12. การชี้ปญหา
13. การใหขอมูล


187

ระดับความเห็น การมี สวนรวมของ
ประชาชนในพื้นที่ 5 4 3 2 1 0
14.การรวมจั ดทําโครงการ ฯ
15. การรวมปฏิบัติงาน
16. การมีสวนรวมในการ
ติดตามประเมิ นผล


ขอ 17
ระดับความเห็น Measurement
5 4 3 2 1
ในการดําเนิ นงานโครงการนี้มีความรวมมือ
ระหว างบุคลากรภายในโครงการในระดับใด


ขอ 18 โปรดระบุ รายละเอี ยดของกิ จกรรมต าง ๆ ที่ จัดทําขึ้ นในโครงการพัฒนาการรวมกลุ ม
อุตสาหกรรมของท าน (ในกรณีคําถามขอนี้ การมีสวนรวมของผูมีสวนเกี่ ยวของจะคิดเปนรอยละ
ของกิจกรรมที่ มีการดําเนิ นการเมื่อเปรียบเทียบกับจํานวนกิจการทั้ งหมด)

กิจกรรม
มีการ
ดําเนินการ
ไมมีการ
ดําเนินการ
1. ริเริ่มการดําเนินการพัฒนาการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรม
2. สรางทีมผูอํ านวยความสะดวกในการพั ฒนาการ
รวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรม

3. กํ าหนดขอบเขตการศึ กษาและขอกํ าหนดของการวิจั ย
โครงการฯ

4. รวบรวมขอมูลและศึกษาลักษณะของกลุมอุตสาหกรรม
5. ทํ าการวิเคราะห จุดแข็ง จุ ดออน โอกาส อุปสรรคของ
กลุม

6. จัดทํ าแผนเพื่อควบคุมดูแลการปฏิบัติงาน
7. จัดสัมมนาเปดตัวแนะนํ าและประชาสัมพันธ โครงการ


188

กิจกรรม
มีการ
ดําเนินการ
ไมมีการ
ดําเนินการ
8. คัดเลือกวิสาหกิ จเขารวมโครงการฯ
9. สรางผู นํ าในการพัฒนาการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรม
10. จัดประชุมเชิงปฏิบัติการ
11. แปลงแผนการพัฒนาการรวมกลุม
อุตสาหกรรมไปสูการปฏิบัติ

12. อธิบายและเผยแพรความรูความเขาใจในองคความรู
เกี่ยวกับการพั ฒนาการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรม

13. ดูแลและจัดการการดําเนินงานพรอมทั้งใหคํา
ปรึกษาหารือเบื้องตนกับผู มี สวนได -สวนเสีย

14. จัดกิจกรรมกลุมสัมพันธ
15. คัดเลือกโครงการนํ ารอง
16. จัดการอบรมเชิงวิชาการ
17. จัดการฝกอบรมเชิงปฏิบั ติการ
รวม












189

สวนที่ 3 ขอมูลความสามารถในการบริหารจัดการงานของหนวยงานภาครัฐ
(Management Ability)

คําชี้แจง โปรดทําเครื่องหมาย 9 ลงในช องตามระดับความเห็นของทาน และโปรดกรอก
ขอความตามความเห็นของทาน

ขอ 19
ระดับความเห็น Measurement
5 4 3 2 1 0
ระดับความลาชาในการเบิกจาย
งบประมาณของกรมสงเสริม
อุตสาหกรรม


ขอ 20 – 21
ระดับความเห็น Measurement
3 2 1
ความชัดเจนของการกํ าหนดสาย
บังคับบัญชา

ความรับผิดชอบของการกํ าหนด
หน าที่ความรั บผิดชอบงาน


ขอ 22
ระดับความเห็น Measurement
5 4 3 2 1
ความรวมมือของบุคคลากร
ภายในโครงการ







190

ขอ 23 – 49 จากการติดตามการดําเนินงานในช วงที่ ผ านมาพบว ากลุ มอุ ตสาหกรรมของท าน ไดมี
การดําเนินกิจกรรมเพื่อพัฒนาการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรมในปงบประมาณ 2550 ทั้งหมดจํานวน 27
กิจกรรม โปรดตรวจสอบสถานะของการดําเนินกิ จกรรมของท านตามที่ ระบุ ไวในแผน พรอมทั้ งระบุ
ความสํ าเร็ จ ประโยชน และป ญหาของแต ละกิ จกรรม รวมทั้ งในกรณี ที่ มี เจาหน าที่ ในหน วยงาน
ทานเขาร วมกิจกรรมดังกลาวโปรดระบุจํานวนเจาหนาที่ที่เขารวมกิจกรรม

กิจกรรม รอยละความสําเร็ จ
1. จัดจางที่ปรึ กษาหรือผูอํานวยความสะดวก
2. สรางทีมผูอํ านวยความสะดวก (CDA) ในการพัฒนาการรวมกลุม
อุตสาหกรรม

3. รวบรวมขอมูลและศึกษาลักษณะของกลุมอุตสาหกรรม
4. ทําการวิเคราะหจุดแข็ ง จุดออน โอกาส อุ ปสรรคของกลุ ม
5. จัดทํ าแผนเพื่อควบคุมดูแลการปฏิบัติงาน
6. จัดสัมมนาเปดตัวแนะนํ าและประชาสัมพันธ โครงการฯ
7. คัดเลือกวิสาหกิ จเขารวมโครงการฯ
8. จัดกิจกรรมกลุมสัมพั นธ
9. จัดการประชุมเชิงปฏิบัติ การ
10. แปลงแผนการพัฒนาการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรมไปสูการปฏิบัติ
11. ดูแลและจัดการการดําเนินงาน พรอมทั้งใหคําปรึกษาหารือ
เบื้องตนกั บผู มีสวนได -สวนเสีย

12. จัดการอบรมเชิงวิชาการ
13. จัดการฝกอบรมเชิงปฏิบั ติการ
14. จัดกิจกรรมศึกษาดู งานในประเทศ
15. จัดกิจกรรมศึกษาดู งานตางประเทศ
16. จัดงานแสดงสินคาภายในประเทศ
17. จัดงานแสดงสินคาในตางประเทศ
18. จัดทํ าตราสินคารวมกัน


191

กิจกรรม รอยละความสําเร็ จ
19. รวมกั นพั ฒนาบรรจุภั ณฑของกลุม
20. จัดทํ าเว็บไซตของกลุม
21. จัดตั้งบริ ษัทรวมทุ นของกลุม
22. รวมลงนามความร วมมื อกับหนวยงานภายในประเทศ
23. รวมลงนามความร วมมื อกับหนวยงานในตางประเทศ
24. กํากับติดตามการดําเนิ นงานของผูอํ านวยความสะดวกหรือที่
ปรึกษาโครงการฯ

25. จัดทํ าแบบสอบถามและเตรียมประเด็ นเพื่อรับฟงความคิดเห็ น
26. กํากับติดตามการดําเนิ นงานของกลุ มอุตสาหกรรม
27. รายงานผลการศึกษาความสําเร็จในการดําเนินการพั ฒนาการ
รวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรม และเผยแพรใหผูมีส วนได-สวนเสี ยไดใช
ประโยชนตอไป


สวนที่ 4 ขอมูลการไดรับการสนับสนุ นจากหนวยงานภาครั ฐ (Perceived Support)

ขอ 50 – 52 ร อยละของงบประมาณที่ อนุ มัติ ต องบประมาณที่ เสนอขอในการพัฒนากลุ ม
อุตสาหกรรม

ระดับความเห็น Measurement
5 4 3 2 1
ระดับความพอเพียงของงบประมาณที่ได รับ
การจัดสรรทั้งหมดในการดําเนินโครงการฯ

ระดับความพอเพียงของเจ าหน าที่
ผูรับผิดชอบโครงการฯ ในการปฏิบัติงาน

ระดับความพอเพียงของจํานวนครุภัณฑ
(วัสดุอุปกรณคงทน) ที่ใชในโครงการ



192

สวนที่ 5 ขอมูลความชัดเจนของวัตถุประสงคโครงการฯ (Clarity of Goal)

ขอ 53 รอยละของงบประมาณที่อนุมัติตองบประมาณที่เสนอขอในการพัฒนากลุมอุตสาหกรรม

ระดับความเห็น Measurement
5 4 3 2 1
ระดับความรูความเข าใจเกี่ยวกับการ
พัฒนาการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรม
หรือคลัสเตอรมากอนเขาร วมเป นสมาชิ ก
กลุมอุตสาหกรรมหรือไม


ขอ 54 – 55 ท านมี การรับรู และเข าใจถึ ง วัตถุ ประสงค กระบวนการในการดําเนิ นงาน และ
เป าหมายของการดําเนิ นโครงการพัฒนาการรวมกลุ มอุ ตสาหกรรมหรื อไม ในระดับใด โปรดระบุ
ระดับความเข าใจจากนอย (1 คะแนน) ไปหามาก (10 คะแนน)

รับรูโดยมีระดับความเขาใจ
มาก นอย
ประเด็น
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
1. วัตถุประสงคของโครงการ

2. กระบวนการในการดําเนินงาน

3. เปาหมายของโครงการ


ขอ 56 – 60 โปรดประเมิ นวิ สาหกิ จในโครงการพัฒนาการรวมกลุ มอุ ตสาหกรรมของท านใน
ปงบประมาณ 2550 ในประเด็นตางๆ ตอไปนี้ โดยใสเครื่องหมาย 9 ในชองที่กํ าหนดไว จากนอย
(1 คะแนน) ไปหามาก (10 คะแนน) ในกรณี ที่ ท านไม สามารถประเมิ นได ให ใส ในช องไม ทราบ







193

มาก คะแนน นอย
รายการ
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
1. ความรูความเขาใจในเรื่อง
การพัฒนาการรวมกลุม
อุตสาหกรรม

2. การเห็นความสํ าคัญของการ
รวมกลุ มอุตสาหกรรม

3. ความสามารถในการดําเนิน
กิจกรรมโดยใชความรวมมือ
ระหวางสมาชิกภายในกลุม
ดวยตนเอง

4. ความกระตือรือรนในการทํา
กิจกรรมกลุ ม

5. ความไววางใจระหวาง
สมาชิก

6 ความมีน้ําใจระหวางสมาชิก

สวนที่ 6 ขอมูลความรูความสามารถของผูมีสวนเกี่ ยวของ (Ability of Cluster Members
and Policy Implementers)

ขอ 61 – 62
ระดับความเห็น Measurement
3 2 1
ระดับความรูเกี่ยวกับการพั ฒนาการ
รวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรมของเจาหนาที่
ดูแลรับผิดชอบโครงการฯ

ระดับของประสบการณเกี่ยวกับการ
พัฒนาการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรม
ของเจาหน าที่ ดูแลรับผิดชอบ
โครงการฯ





194

ขอ 63
ระดับความเห็น Measurement
5 4 3 2 1
ระดับประโยชนของขอมูลขาวสารที่ไดรับสามารถใน
การดําเนินงานโครงการ ฯ


ขอ 64 - 76 ท านมี ความคิ ดเห็ นว าผู อํานวยความสะดวกโครงการพัฒนาการรวมกลุ มและ
เชื่อมโยงอุตสาหกรรมควรมีคุณสมบัติ ที่สําคัญอยางไรบ าง โปรดระบุ คะแนนระดั บความสํ าคัญจาก
นอย (1 คะแนน) ไปหามาก (10 คะแนน)

ระดับความสําคัญ
มาก นอย คุณสมบัติ
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
1. เป นผูที่คํานึ งถึงประโยชน สวนรวม
และความตองการของผูมีส วนได-สวน
เสียที่เกี่ยวของทั้ งหมดในอุ ตสาหกรรม

2. มีความสามารถดานการวางแผน
3. มีความรอบรูลึกซึ้งในแนวคิดการ
พัฒนาการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรม

4. มีความเขาใจวัตถุประสงคของ
โครงการพั ฒนาการรวมกลุม
อุตสาหกรรม

5. มีความสามารถในการประสานงาน/
รับฟงความคิ ดเห็น ตลอดจนเปนที่
ปรึกษาและให บริการคําแนะนําในการ
พัฒนาการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรม

6. มีวิสั ยทัศน ความคิดริเริ่มสรางสรรค
ในการคิดวิเคราะหและวินิจฉัยกลุม

7. มีความเชื่อมั่นในตนเองและกลาแสดง
ความคิดเห็ น



195

ระดับความสําคัญ
มาก นอย คุณสมบัติ
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
8. มีมนุษยสั มพันธและบุคลิกภาพดี
9. มีความสามารถในการถ ายทอด
ภารกิจใหผูนํ า/ผูประสานงานในการ
พัฒนาการรวมกลุมได

10. มีความสามารถในการรายงานผล
การศึกษา

11. มีความสามารถจัดการและ
ดําเนิ นการตามขั้นตอนการ
พัฒนาการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรมได
สําเร็จ

12. มีประสบการณในการดําเนิ น
โครงการพั ฒนาการรวมกลุม
อุตสาหกรรม

13. มีความรับผิดชอบตอการดําเนิน
โครงการพั ฒนาการรวมกลุม
อุตสาหกรรม













196

สวนที่ 7 ขอมูลความรูเกี่ ยวของกับการแลกเปลี่ยนขอมูลขาวสาร การใชประโยชนจาก
ขอมูลข าวสาร (Communication)

ขอ 77 - 78
ระดับความเห็ น
มาก นอย
Measurement
5 4 3 2 1
ระดับของการไดรับขอมูลขาวสารเกี่ ยวกั บ
การพัฒนาการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรมจาก
หน วยงานที่ เกี่ ยวของภายในกระทรวง
อุตสาหกรรม

ระดับของการไดรับขอมูลขาวสารเกี่ ยวกั บ
การพัฒนาการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรมจาก
หน วยงานที่ เกี่ ยวของอื่ น ๆ ทั้ งภาครัฐและ
ภาคเอกชน


ขอ 79 - 82 โปรดประเมิ นวิ สาหกิ จในโครงการพัฒนาการรวมกลุ มอุ ตสาหกรรมของท านใน
ปงบประมาณ 2550 ในประเด็นตางๆ ตอไปนี้ โดยใสเครื่องหมาย 9 ในชองที่กํ าหนดไว จากนอย
(1 คะแนน) ไปหามาก (10 คะแนน)

นอย คะแนน มาก
รายการ
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
การแลกเปลี่ยนขอมูลขาวสาร
ระหวางสมาชิกในกลุม

การติดตอสื่อสารและ/หรือการ
กระจายขอมูลข าวสารระหวาง
สมาชิกในกลุม

การแลกเปลี่ยนเทคโนโลยีการผลิต

การแสดงความคิดเห็นในการ
พัฒนาการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรม



197

สวนที่ 8 ขอมูลเกี่ ยวกับคุณภาพของโครงการ (Quality of Project)

ขอ 83
ดีขึ้นมาก ระดับความเห็ น ดีขึ้นน อย Measurement
3 2 1
ระดับของลักษณะการรวมกลุม
อุตสาหกรรมดังกลาวเมื่อ
เปรียบเที ยบกับปที่แล ว ท านมี
ความคิดเห็ นว ากลุมอุตสาหกรรม
ของทานมีลั กษณะอยางไร


ขอ 84
ระดับความเห็ น
มาก นอย
Measurement
5 4 3 2 1
ระดับของความรวดเร็วในการพัฒนาการ
รวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรมของท าน


ขอ 85 – 128 โปรดระบุคะแนนตามระดับความพึ งพอใจของทานในการบริการของเจาหน าที่ของ
กรมส งเสริ มอุ ตสาหกรรม จากการเข าร วมกิ จกรรมการรวมกลุ มอุ ตสาหกรรมในป งบประมาณ
2550 โดยใสเครื่องหมาย 9 ในชองที่ กํ าหนดไว ซึ่งมี ระดับความพึ งพอใจจากนอย (1 คะแนน) ไป
หามาก (10 คะแนน)

นอย ความพึงพอใจในการบริการของเจาหนาที่กรมฯ มาก
รายการ
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. การเขาถึงบริการ


1.1 การมีเวลาใหคําปรึกษาหารือ
แกสมาชิก

1.2 การกําหนดชวงเวลาในการ
ดําเนินกิจกรรม



198

นอย ความพึงพอใจในการบริการของเจาหนาที่กรมฯ มาก
รายการ
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1.3 การกําหนดสถานที่ในการ
ดําเนินกิจกรรม

2. การติดตอสื่อสาร/
ประสานงาน

2.1 ความสามารถในการอธิ บาย
ใหสมาชิกมีความเขาใจเกี่ ยวกับ
การพัฒนาการรวมกลุม

2.2 ความสามารถในการถายทอด
ภารกิจใหแกสมาชิกเพื่อดําเนินการ
พัฒนาการรวมกลุ มอุ ตสาหกรรม
ไดอยางตอเนื่อง

2.3 การให ข อมู ลที่ เป นประโยชน
ในการพัฒนาการรวมกลุม
อุตสาหกรรมแกสมาชิก




2.4 ความรวดเร็วในการติดตอ
ประสานงานกับสมาชิกในโครงการ

2.5 การประสานงานกับหนวยงานที่
เกี่ยวของกับการพัฒนาการรวมกลุม
อุตสาหกรรมอยางทัน

3. ความรูความสามารถ
3.1 ความรูความสามารถในการ
พัฒนาการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรม

3.2 ความชํานาญในการพัฒนาการ
รวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรม

3.3 ความรูเกี่ยวกับอุตสาหกรรมที่
ทําการพัฒนา

4. ความมีน้ําใจ
4.1 การมีมนุษยสัมพันธกับสมาชิก
4.2 ความเอาใจใสในการดําเนินงาน
4.3 ความกระตือรือรนในการ
ดําเนินงาน




199

นอย ความพึงพอใจในการบริการของเจาหนาที่กรมฯ มาก
รายการ
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
5. ความนาเชื่อถือ
5.1 การรวบรวมขอมูลและศึกษา
ลักษณะของกลุมอุตสาหกรรม

5.2 การสนับสนุนใหมีการจัดทํา
แผนการพัฒนาการรวมกลุม
อุตสาหกรรมอยางชัดเจน

5.3 การดูแลใหมีการปฏิบัติงาน
ตามแผนที่กําหนด

5.4 การดูแลใหมีการปฏิบัติงาน
ตามแผนภายในระยะเวลาที่กําหนด

6. ความไววางใจ
6.1 ความสม่ําเสมอในการเขารวม
กิจกรรมการพัฒนาการรวมกลุม

6.2 การพัฒนากลุ มอุ ตสาหกรรม
ใหเปนไปตามเปาหมายที่กําหนด

7. การตอบสนองตอสมาชิก
7.1 ความรวดเร็วในการตอบสนอง
ตอความตองการของสมาชิก

7.2 ความรวดเร็วในการแกไข
ปญหาตางๆ ของสมาชิก

8. ความมั่นคงปลอดภัย
8.1 การดูแลใหมีการจัดตั้ง
คณะกรรมการหรือผูนํากลุม
อุตสาหกรรม

8.2 การผลักดันใหการพัฒนาการ
รวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรมของทาน
บรรจุ ในแผน/แผนยุ ทธศาสตร
ระดับ

8.3 การติดตามผลการดําเนินงาน
อยางตอเนื่อง

8.4 การประเมินผลการดําเนิน
กิจกรรมตางๆ ที่ ไดดําเนินการ



200

นอย ความพึงพอใจในการบริการของเจาหนาที่กรมฯ มาก
รายการ
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
9. การสรางบริการใหเปนที่รูจัก
9.1 การประชาสัมพันธโครงการ
พัฒนาการรวมกลุมอุ ตสาหกรรม
ใหผูมีสวนเกี่ยวของไดรับทราบ

9.2 การประชาสัมพันธการดําเนิน
กิจกรรมของสมาชิกสูสาธารณชน

10. การเขาใจและการรูจัก
สมาชิกในกลุมอุตสาหกรรม

10.1 การรวมปรึกษาหารือในการ
ดําเนินกิจกรรม

10.2 การอํานวยความสะดวกใน
การดําเนินกิจกรรมของกลุม


ขอ 129 – 145 โปรดระบุ คะแนนตามระดับความพึ งพอใจของท านในการบริ การของที่ ปรึ กษา
โครงการ จากการเข าร วมกิ จกรรมการรวมกลุ มอุ ตสาหกรรมในป งบประมาณ 2550 โดยใส
เครื่องหมาย 9 ในชองที่กํ าหนดไว ซึ่ งมี ระดับความพึ งพอใจจากนอย (1 คะแนน) ไปหามาก (10
คะแนน) (หากกลุมอุตสาหกรรมของทานไมมีที่ปรึกษาโครงการ กรุณาขามขอนี้)

นอย ความพึงพอใจในการบริการของที่ปรึกษา มาก
รายการ
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. การเขาถึงบริการ
1.1 การมีเวลาใหคําปรึกษาหารือ
แกสมาชิก

1.2 การกําหนดชวงเวลาในการ
ดําเนินกิจกรรม

1.3 การกําหนดสถานที่ในการ
ดําเนินกิจกรรม

2. การติดตอสื่ อสาร/ประสานงาน
2.1 ความสามารถในการอธิ บาย
ใหสมาชิกมีความเขาใจเกี่ ยวกับ
การพัฒนาการรวมกลุม



201

นอย ความพึงพอใจในการบริการของที่ปรึกษา มาก
รายการ
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2.2 ความสามารถในการถายทอด
ภา ร กิ จ ใ ห แ ก สมา ชิ กเ พื่ อ
ดํ าเนิ นการพัฒนาการรวมกลุ ม
อุตสาหกรรมไดอยางตอเนื่อง

2.3 การให ข อมู ลที่ เป นประโยชน
ในการพัฒนาการรวมกลุม
อุตสาหกรรมแกสมาชิก

2.4 ความรวดเร็วในการติดตอ
ประสานงานกับสมาชิกในโครงการ

2.5 การประสานงานกับหนวยงานที่
เกี่ยวของกับการพัฒนาการรวมกลุม
อุตสาหกรรมอยางทัน

3. ความรูความสามารถ
3.1 ความรูความสามารถในการ
พัฒนาการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรม

3.2 ความชํานาญในการพัฒนาการ
รวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรม

3.3 ความรูเกี่ยวกับอุตสาหกรรมที่
ทําการพัฒนา

4. ความมีน้ําใจ
4.1 การมีมนุษยสัมพันธกับสมาชิก
4.2 ความเอาใจใสในการดําเนินงาน
4.3 ความกระตือรือรนในการ
ดําเนินงาน

5. ความนาเชื่อถือ
5.1 การรวบรวมขอมูลและศึกษา
ลักษณะของกลุมอุตสาหกรรม

5.2 การสนับสนุนใหมีการจัดทํา
แผนการพัฒนาการรวมกลุม
อุตสาหกรรมอยางชัดเจน




202

นอย ความพึงพอใจในการบริการของที่ปรึกษา มาก
รายการ
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
5.3 การดูแลใหมีการปฏิบัติงาน
ตามแผนที่กําหนด

5.4 การดูแลใหมีการปฏิบัติงาน
ตามแผนภายในระยะเวลาที่กําหนด

6. ความไววางใจ
6.1 ความสม่ําเสมอในการเขารวม
กิจกรรมการพัฒนาการรวมกลุม

6.2 การพัฒนากลุ มอุ ตสาหกรรมให
เปนไปตามเปาหมายที่กําหนด

7. การตอบสนองตอสมาชิก
7.1 ความรวดเร็วในการตอบสนอง
ตอความตองการของสมาชิก

7.2 ความรวดเร็วในการแกไข
ปญหาตางๆ ของสมาชิก

8. ความมั่นคงปลอดภัย
8.1 การดูแลใหมีการจัดตั้ง
คณะกรรมการหรือผูนํากลุม
อุตสาหกรรม

8.2 การผลักดันใหการพัฒนาการ
รวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรมของทาน
บรรจุในแผน/แผนยุทธศาสตรระดับ

8.3 การติดตามผลการดําเนินงาน
อยางตอเนื่อง

8.4 การประเมินผลการดําเนิน
กิจกรรมตางๆ ที่ ไดดําเนินการ

9. การสรางบริการใหเปนที่รูจัก
9.1 การประชาสัมพันธโครงการ
พัฒนาการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรม
ใหผูมีสวนเกี่ยวของไดรับทราบ

9.2 การประชาสัมพันธการดําเนิน
กิจกรรมของสมาชิกสูสาธารณชน



203

นอย ความพึงพอใจในการบริการของที่ปรึกษา มาก
รายการ
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
10. การเขาใจและการรูจัก
สมาชิกในกลุมอุตสาหกรรม

10.1 การรวมปรึกษาหารือในการ
ดําเนินกิจกรรม

10.2 การอํานวยความสะดวกใน
การดําเนินกิจกรรมของกลุม







204

สวนที่ 9 ขอมูลเกี่ ยวกับประสิทธิผลจากการดํ าเนินโครงการฯ (Effectiveness)
ขอ 146 - 150
คะแนน
กอนเขารวมโครงการ
นอย มาก
หลังเขารวมโครงการ
นอย มาก
รายการ
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. การตระหนักและเห็นความสําคัญ
ของการรวมกลุ มอุตสาหกรรม
ภายในประเทศ

2. การตระหนักและเห็นความสําคัญ
ของการรวมกลุ มอุตสาหกรรมกับ
ตางประเทศ

3. ความเขาใจเกี่ยวกับการ
พัฒนาการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรม

4. การรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรมมี
ประโยชนตอการประกอบกิจการ
ของทาน

5. การรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรมมี
ประโยชนตอกลุ มอุตสาหกรรม
ของท าน

2
0
4

205
ขอ 151 จากการติดตามการดําเนินงานในชวงที่ผ านมาพบวากลุ มอุ ตสาหกรรมของท าน ไดมี
การดําเนิ นกิ จกรรมเพื่ อพัฒนาการรวมกลุ มอุ ตสาหกรรมในป งบประมาณ 2550 ทั้ งหมด
จํานวน 27 กิ จกรรม โปรดตรวจสอบสถานะ (รอยละความสํ าเร็จ) ของการดําเนิ นกิจกรรมของ
ทานตามที่ระบุไวในแผน

กิจกรรม รอยละความสําเร็ จ
1. จัดจางที่ปรึ กษาหรือผูอํานวยความสะดวก
2. สรางทีมผูอํ านวยความสะดวก (CDA) ในการพัฒนาการรวมกลุม
อุตสาหกรรม

3. รวบรวมขอมูลและศึกษาลักษณะของกลุมอุตสาหกรรม
4. ทําการวิเคราะหจุดแข็ ง จุดออน โอกาส อุ ปสรรคของกลุ ม
5. จัดทํ าแผนเพื่อควบคุมดูแลการปฏิบัติงาน
6. จัดสัมมนาเปดตัวแนะนํ าและประชาสัมพันธ โครงการ ฯ
7. คัดเลือกวิสาหกิ จเขารวมโครงการ ฯ
8. จัดกิจกรรมกลุมสัมพั นธ
9. จัดการประชุมเชิงปฏิบัติ การ
10. แปลงแผนการพัฒนาการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรมไปสูการปฏิบัติ
11. ดูแลและจัดการการดําเนินงาน พรอมทั้งใหคําปรึกษาหารือ
เบื้องตนกั บผู มีสวนได -สวนเสีย

12. จัดการอบรมเชิงวิชาการ
13. จัดการฝกอบรมเชิงปฏิบั ติการ
14. จัดกิจกรรมศึกษาดู งานในประเทศ
15. จัดกิจกรรมศึกษาดู งานตางประเทศ
16. จัดงานแสดงสินคาภายในประเทศ
17. จัดงานแสดงสินคาในตางประเทศ
18. จัดทํ าตราสินคารวมกัน
19. รวมกั นพั ฒนาบรรจุภั ณฑของกลุม
206


กิจกรรม รอยละความสําเร็ จ
20. จัดทํ าเว็บไซตของกลุม
21. จัดตั้งบริ ษัทรวมทุ นของกลุม
22. รวมลงนามความร วมมื อกับหนวยงานภายในประเทศ
23. รวมลงนามความร วมมื อกับหนวยงานในตางประเทศ
24. กํากับติดตามการดําเนิ นงานของผูอํ านวยความสะดวกหรือที่
ปรึกษาโครงการ ฯ

25. จัดทํ าแบบสอบถามและเตรียมประเด็ นเพื่อรับฟงความคิดเห็ น
26. กํากับติดตามการดําเนิ นงานของกลุ มอุตสาหกรรม
27. รายงานผลการศึกษาความสําเร็จในการดําเนิ นการพัฒนาการ
รวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรม และเผยแพรใหผูมีส วนได-สวนเสี ยไดใช
ประโยชนตอไป



ขอ 152
มาก ระดับความเห็ น นอย Measurement
3 2 1
ระดับของความชัดเจนในการ
รวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรมของท านใน
ปงบประมาณ 2550


สวนที่ 10 ขอมูลเกี่ยวกับประสิทธิภาพจากการดํ าเนินโครงการฯ (Effeciency)
B/C Ratio received from DIP database


 








APPENDIX C

DETAILS OF FACTOR LOADING











208
Table B.1 Factor Loading of Participation of Stakeholders

Participation of Stakeholders Factor Loading
Participation of people in that area
Stage of initiating the project
Level of identifying the problems 0.733
Level of providing information 0.629
Level of participating in initiating the project 0.641
Stage of implementing the project
Level of identifying the problems 0.640
Level of providing information 0.641
Level of participating in initiating the project 0.676
Level of participating in work procedure 0.683
Participating in monitoring the project 0.612
Participating of private organizations
Stage of initiating the project
Level of identifying the problems -0.400
Level of providing information -0.476
Level of participating in initiating the project -0.665
Stage of implementing the project
Level of identify the problems -0.421
Level of providing information -0.684
Level of participating in initiating the project -0.815
Level of participating in work procedure -0.767
Level of participating in monitoring the project -0.733
Level of participation of internal project officials in implementing
the project -0.315
Level of initiation of implementing industrial cluster -0.733
Level of creating cluster development agents -0.340
Level of scoping studying boundary and terms of reference
(TOR) -0.400


209
Table B.1 (Continued)


Participation of Stakeholders Factor Loading
Level of gathering information and studying characteristics of
industrial cluster -0.311
Level of analyzing strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and
threats of industrial cluster -0.411
Level of initiating plans for controlling working implementation -0.390
Level of organizing a seminar introducing industrial cluster -0.390
Level of selecting enterprises to join the project -0.445
Level of assistance in creating a cluster leader -0.420
Level of organizing work meetings 0.474
Level of changing industrial cluster plans to real practice 0.564
Level of taking care of work implementation and providing
fundamental consultancy to stakeholders -0.426
Level of organizing academic training -0.326
Level of organizing workshop training 0.365
Level of creating domestic study programs -0.377
Level of creating international study programs 0.319
Level of organizing trade exhibitions in Thailand -0.478
Level of organizing trade exhibitions outside Thailand -0.321
Level of creating cluster branding 0.396
Level of developing cluster packaging 0.339
Level of developing cluster website -0.320
Level of creating joining investment company -0.404
Level of sign up MOU with domestic organizations 0.312
Level of sign up MOU with international organizations 0.331
Level of creating questionnaires 0.532
Level of monitoring and following industrial cluster
implementation -0.341
Level of reporting regarding industrial cluster
implementation 0.391


210
Table B.1 (Continued)


Participation of Stakeholders Factor Loading
Level of changing industrial cluster plans to real practice 0.397
Level of taking care of work implementation and providing
fundamental consultancy to stakeholders 0.383
Level of organizing academic training -0.336

Table B.2 Factor Loading of Management Ability

Management ability Factor Loading
Level of the delay in budget reimbursement -0.357
Level of amount of DIP budget -0.358
Level of clarity of hierarchical structure -0.401
Level of responsibility of pointing out duties and responsibilities 0.395
Level of cooperation within industrial cluster 0.634
Level of hiring project consultant or CDA 0.592
Level of creating CDA 0.623
Level of gathering information and characteristics of industrial
cluster 0.642
Level of analyzing strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and
threats of industrial cluster 0.968
Level of initiating plans for controlling work
implementation 0.683
Level of organizing seminars of introducing industrial cluster 0.796
Level of selecting enterprises to join the project 0.758
Level of organizing ice-breaking activities 0.962
Level of organizing work meetings 0.866
Level of changing industrial cluster plans to real practice 0.888
Level of taking care of work implementation and providing
fundamental consultancy to stakeholders 0.935


211
Table B.2 (Continued)


Management ability Factor Loading
Level of organizing academic training 0.919
Level of organizing workshop training 0.845
Level of creating domestic study programs 0.702
Level of creating international study programs -0.447
Level of organizing trade exhibitions in Thailand -0.428
Level of organizing trade exhibitions outside Thailand 0.403
Level of creating cluster branding 0.744
Level of developing cluster packaging 0.403
Level of developing cluster website -0.351
Level of creating joining investment company -0.567
Level of signing up MOU with domestic organization -0.467
Level of signing up MOU with international organization 0.587
Level of creating questionnaires 0.807
Level of monitoring and following industrial cluster
implementation 0.663
Level or reporting regarding industrial cluster
implementation 0.847

Table B.3 Factor Loading of Perceived Support

Perceived Support Factor
Loading
Level of intended budget -0.460
Level of received budget 0.459
Level of sufficiency of budget allocation 0.809
Level of sufficiency of government officials that are responsible
for the project 0.823
Level of sufficiency of office instruments 0.446



212
Table B.4 Factor Loading of Clarity of Goal

Clarity of goal Factor Loading
Level of understanding of industrial cluster development before
entering the project 0.521
Level of understanding of project objective 0.485
Level of understanding of work procedure/standards 0.489
Level of understanding of project goals 0.542
Level of knowledge and understanding of industrial cluster
development 0.701
Level of realization of industrial cluster development 0.817
Level of being enthusiastic for doing cluster activities 0.804
Level of reliability among cluster members 0.573
Level of kindness among cluster members 0.653

Table B.5 Factor Loading of Ability of Cluster Members and Policy Implementers

Ability of Cluster Members and Policy Implementers Factor Loading
Level of DIP officials’ knowledge about industrial cluster
development -0.360
Level of DIP officials’ experience about industrial cluster
development -0.379
Level of applying received information to real practice -0.361
Level of considering overall benefits and needs of stakeholders 0.669
Level of ability to plan the project 0.733
Level of deeply understanding the concept of industrial cluster
development 0.801
Level of understanding of industrial cluster project 0.789
Level of ability to coordinate and to accept opinions, and to
provide consultancies for industrial cluster development 0.781
Level of having creative thinking for analyzing industrial cluster 0.772


213
Table B.5 (Continued)


Ability of Cluster Members and Policy Implementers Factor Loading
Level of confidence in providing opinions 0.691
Level of being friendly and good personality 0.743
Level of ability to translate missions to leader and CDA for
developing industrial cluster 0.797
Level of ability to report the results of the study 0.717
Level of managing and implementing to develop industrial
cluster in steps 0.824
Level of experience of industrial cluster project 0.724
Level of responsibility of industrial cluster project 0.793


Table B.6 Factor Loading of Communication

Communication Factor Loading
Level of receiving information related to industrial cluster
development from within DIP -0.341
Level of receiving information related to industrial cluster
development from outside DIP -0.392
Level of exchanging information among cluster members 0.686
Level of communication and information distribution among
cluster member 0.963
Level of exchanging technology 0.621
Level of providing opinions regarding cluster implementation 0.825







214
Table B.7 Factor Loading of Quality of Project

Quality of Project Factor Loading
Level of improvement on characteristics of industrial cluster -0.358
Level of quickness of industrial cluster development -0.348
Entering the service
Level of satisfaction of time that DIP officials provided
consultancy to cluster members 0.843
Level of satisfaction of time period that DIP officials
implemented activities 0.866
Level of satisfaction with location that DIP officials provide to
cluster members to implement activities 0.811
Coordination
Level of satisfaction with DIP officials’ ability to explain to
cluster members understanding of industrial cluster development 0.883
Level of satisfaction with DIP officials’ ability to assign mission
to cluster members for implementing industrial cluster
development 0.898
Level of satisfaction with DIP officials’ ability to provide benefit
information to cluster for industrial cluster development 0.885
Level of satisfaction with DIP officials’ ability to coordinate with
related organizations in industrial cluster development 0.905
Knowledge and ability
Level of satisfaction of DIP officials’ knowledge and ability in
the development of industrial cluster 0.924
Level of satisfaction with DIP officials’ expertise in development
of industrial cluster 0.857
Level of satisfaction with DIP officials’ knowledge about
industrial development 0.864




215
Table B.7 (Continued)

Quality of Project Factor Loading
Thoughtfulness
Level of satisfaction with DIP officials regarding human relations
with members 0.814
Level of satisfaction with DIP officials in caring of working 0.871
Level of satisfaction with DIP officials for being enthusiastic 0.873
and reliable
Level of satisfaction with DIP officials for collecting information
and studying category of industrial cluster 0.856
Level of satisfaction with DIP officials for supporting plans for
development of industrial cluster 0.876
Level of satisfaction with DIP officials in taking care of operation
plans 0.894
Level of satisfaction with DIP officials in taking care of operation
plans in time 0.896
Trust
Level of satisfaction with DIP officials for regularity involving
the activities of industrial cluster development 0.874
Level of satisfaction with DIP officials in development of
industrial cluster on target 0.875
Members respond
Level of satisfaction with DIP officials for immediately
responding to members’ demands 0.900
Level of satisfaction with DIP officials for immediately solving
problems of members 0.876
Security and safety
Level of satisfaction with DIP officials for taking care of board
building or industrial cluster leader 0.853
Level of satisfaction with DIP officials for pushing development
industrial cluster at the plan/strategic level 0.803


216
Table B.7 (Continued)

Quality of Project Factor Loading
Level of satisfaction with DIP officials for following up on the
working results 0.846
Level of satisfaction with DIP officials for result evaluation of activities 0.874
Creating familiar service
Level of satisfaction with DIP officials in development of
industrial cluster project information 0.883
Level of satisfaction with DIP officials for information on activities 0.810
Understanding and getting to know cluster members
Level of providing consultancy about activities 0.790
Level of facilitating members’ activities 0.883

Table B.8 Factor Loading of Successful Implementation

Successful Implementation Factor Loading
Level of realization and agreement regarding the importance of
domestic industrial cluster 0.821
Level of realization and agreement regarding the importance of
international industrial cluster 0.615
Level of understanding of industrial cluster 0.791
Level of participation in industrial cluster benefits to enterprises 0.558
Level of benefits for being industrial cluster 0.717
Level of success in implementing activities 0.595
Level of promoting business 0.822
Level of cooperation 0.632
Level of cluster members participating in implementing activities 0.831
Level of cluster members promoting industrial cluster 0.674
Level of increases in tentative profits 0.451
Level of promotion of enterprise chain -0.362
Level of benefit-cost ratio 0.351
 








APPENDIX D

MODEL OF SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION
AMOS VERSION 6.0










218
Based on the literature review, the following model was framed and
developed. Hypothesis 11 states that the proposed model fit well with the empirical
data using Amos Version 6.0, as shown in Figure 5.1.

SI
EN een
1
1
EC eec
1
COM
QP
PS
MA
SUP
CG
ACP
esi
1
ecom
1
eqp
1


Figure C.1 Model of Successful Implementation of Industrial Cluster in Thailand

The results of the model assessment of Successful Implementation of
Industrial Cluster in Thailand using Amos Version 6.0 are shown in Figure 2.



219

.96
SI
.38
EN een
.43
.02
EC eec
-.18
.13
COM
.04
QP
PS
MA
SUP
CG
ACP
.03
.66***
.14
.26*
.33**
.41**
.25*
.36***
-.06
.07
.17**
-.07
-.28
.11
-.05
.34
.24
.00 .08
-.11
-.06
esi
ecom
eqp
.39
.33

Figure C.2 The Results of Hypothesized Model of Successful Implementation of
Industrial Cluster in Thailand
Note: Chi-square = 13.290, df = 11, P = 0.125, CMIN/DF =1.208, GFI = 0.987,
RMSEA = 0.031
*P<0.10, **P<0.05, ***P<0.01







 
BIOGRAPHY

NAME Ariyaporn Suranartyuth

ACADEMIC BACKGROUND B.A. Economics
University of California, Los Angeles
(UCLA)
M.A. Economics
University of California, Santa Barbara
(UCSB)

PRESENT POSITION Industrial Technical Officer
Department of Industrial Promotion
Ministry of Industry
Rama VI Road, Ratchathewi
Bangkok 10400, Thailand 
 
 

 

ABSTRACT
Title of Dissertation A Study of the Factors Contributing to the Success of Industrial Cluster Implementation in Thailand Author Degree Year Ariyaporn Suranartyuth Doctor of Philosophy (Development Administration) 2010

This research studies the factors contributing to the success of industrial cluster implementation in Thailand. The objectives of this research are: 1) to study the criteria of effectiveness and efficiency, 2) to identify the factors that lead to successful industrial cluster implementation in Thailand from an implementation perspective, and 3) to receive suggestions for improving the implementation of the industrial clusters. The research is conducted at the enterprise level of analysis. Secondary data from questionnaires belonging to the Department of Industrial Promotion (DIP) were used for the research. The respondents were enterprises that joined the industrial cluster project implemented by the DIP in fiscal year 2007. During that year, the DIP implemented 22 industrial clusters in various areas in Thailand. The questionnaires that were responded to were collected randomly for each industrial cluster with an expectation of 10 answered questionnaires per industrial cluster. Therefore, the questionnaires represented 220 enterprises. A Likert scale was used for the questionnaires but four kinds of Likert scales appeared in the research: 1) a 10-point Likert scale from level 1 to level 10; 2) a 5-point Likert scale from level 0 to level 5 and level 1 to level 5; 3) a 3-point Likert scale from level 1 to level 3; and 4) the decision to say “yes” or “no.” The different levels ranged from strongly disagree at level 1 to higher levels of agreement; level 0 meant “no opinion.” For the research methodology, cross-tabulation was used to study such characteristics of fundamental statistics as frequency distribution and percentage. The

iv disaggregate method was used to disaggregate the data that were collected from the cluster level of analysis to the enterprise level of analysis; this method distributed the data from 22 units to 220 units. Replacing the mission value by series mean was used as a way to replace the missing value by approximation. A z-score was used in the case of different constructing scales, this being one of the methods of standardizing data. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used for simultaneous study of a series of interrelate dependence relationships among variables or indicators. Overall, the findings of the study provided interpretations, suggestions, limitations, and recommendations for future research. The findings also served to draw implications for research, practice, and theory.

My father (Major General Somsak). but was also my supervisor. since I have worked in the government sector. in particular writing a dissertation. Assistant Professor Dr. would not been possible without their unconditional love and continual support and encouragement. my two brothers (Verachat and Vatanarak). My Ph. Pairote Pathranarakul. research methodology. Although only my name. my mother (Mrs. and I feel proud to present the story of my dissertation to others. a member of the examining committee. in reality we all obtained the Ph. my husband (Police Major Dr. However. He was not only my committee chairperson. has been a tough journey. faculty. was my dream since I was studying at the university level for degrees at both UCLA and UCSB. the chairperson of the examining committee. great conclusions for my dissertation. I am deeply grateful to all of them. the pursuit of doctoral studies. my thought has changed perspective—I now believe that a solution sometimes comes from experience and opinion with reasonable support. provided me with continued guidance regarding concepts.D. and have encouraged me to make my dream of obtaining a Ph. to study for the Ph. in Development Administration in the school of Public Administration was absolutely not my initial intention for continued study since my background was in economics.D. Kasemsarn Chotchakornpant. He pointed out the way to go while I was facing a hard time solving problems with data collection. my two sons (Intaradej and my other son who was with me during the entire time of my hard work on my dissertation since I was pregnant with him). level to Development Administration since I believed that this field would provide me with the ability to explore conceptual knowledge from a different angle and would benefit my career path in working for the government and for the public benefit. In particular. Somchai Harnhirun. Ariyaporn. my dissertation advisor. However. Prakairat). Along the way. Therefore.D. together. His questions made my dissertation more complete.D. Arit). However. and family have provided support and guidance. Assistant Professor Dr. Ariyaporn Suranartyuth January 2011 .ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS To obtain a Ph.D. He was also my professional model on my career path. appeared for the owner of this dissertation. for graciously accepting my invitation to be part of my journey. possible. I would like to express my sincere appreciation to: Assistant Professor Dr. I changed my field of study at the Ph.D. friends.

4 Significance of the Study 1.1 Review of Literature of the Major Factors Affecting Implementation of Policy 3.5 Framework of Industrial Cluster Policy 2.3 Objectives of the Study 1.3 Review of the Cluster Concept 2.7 Definition of Terms 2.6 Research Contribution 1.1 Statement of the Problems 1.2 Policy Success or Failure 1 1 3 3 3 4 6 6 9 13 18 30 32 35 37 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF INDUSTRIAL CLUSTER IMPLEMENTATION 9 37 56 .5 Scope of the Study 1.2 Industrial Promotion Measures from the 1st to the 10th Plan 2.4 Industrial Cluster Implementation in Thailand 2.1 Review of National Industrial Development Policy 2.6 Key Success Factors CHAPTER 3 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND PROPOSED MODEL OF STUDY 3.TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES iii v vi viii ix CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.2 Research Questions 1.

3 Suggestions 6.3 Target Population and Sampling 4.5 Research Hypotheses 3.4 Conceptual Model of the Study 3.3 Previous Study on Policy Implementation 3.4 Data Collection Method 4.5 Recommendations for Further Research 107 128 129 137 138 140 141 BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES Appendix A Questionnaire (English) Appendix B Questionnaire (Thai) Appendix C Details of Factor Loading Appendix D Model of Successful Implementation by Amos Version 6.4 Limitations of the Research 6.2 Criteria of Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Industrial Cluster 6.1 Results of Descriptive Statistics 63 65 66 67 72 72 76 77 77 78 87 97 97 5.vii 3.5 Method of Data Analysis 4.1 Research Design 4.2 Unit of Analysis 4.1 Interpretations of the Research 6.6 Variables and Measurement of Variables CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 4.0 BIOGRAPHY 143 154 181 207 217 220 .6 Operationalization of Variables CHAPTER 5 DATA ANALYSIS 5.2 Statistical Testing CHAPTER 6 INTERPRETATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 6.

5 Factors and Reliability Analysis (Cronbach’s Alpha) 5.10 Causal Relationships of a Successful Implementation Model Page 4 5 8 23 26 73 74 88 97 100 100 102 109 111 115 116 118 120 5.2 Characteristics of Quantitative Research 4.2 Names of Industrial Clusters Promoted by the DIP.1 Industries/Sectors Versus Industrial Clusters 2. Fiscal Year 2007 1.8 Meaning of Variables 5.2 Establishment of Industrial Clusters 5.1 General Information on Enterprises 5.3 Definitions and Operationalization of Variables 5.11 Coefficient of Determination of a Successful Implementation Model 121 5.4 Summary of Obstacles to Implementing Industrial Clusters in Fiscal Year 2007 5.7 Correlation Matrix of Independent Variables 5.12 Direct and Indirect Effect Matrix 5.1 Different Stages of Cluster Development 122 126 141 .13 Summary of Results of Hypothesis Testing 6.1 The Dimensions of Social Research from a Quantitative Approach 4.9 The Overall Model Fit Indices 5.viii LIST OF TABLES Tables 1.3 Establishing Units of Industrial Clusters 5.1 The Growth Rate of the GDP 1.3 Criteria for Classifying SMEs 2.6 Explaining the Various Statistical Values for Considering the Appropriateness of EFA 5.2 Nawelaers’s Summary Regarding Classifying Different Levels of Aggregation 4.

2 Clusters at Different Levels of Aggregation 3.1 Basic Research Process 4.4 Path Diagram of a Complex Structural Model 4.5 Formative and Reflective Models 4.3 Path Diagram of a Simple Structure Theory 4.7 Organizational Development Model 3.13 B/C Ratio 3.2 Sabatier and Mazmanian’s Model 3.6 Management Model 3.1 Van Meter and Van Horn’s Model: A Model of Inter-Governmental Policy Implementation 3.1 Framework for Defining the Industrial Cluster 2.6 Steps in Research Design 5.3 Edwards’s Model 3.3 The Causal Relationships of Supportive Hypotheses 119 61 62 66 75 80 82 83 85 96 108 117 48 49 51 52 53 53 54 55 56 59 Page 21 27 46 .1 Cronbach Alpha Coefficient ( α ) 5.2 Z-Score 4.12 Effectiveness of Industrial Cluster Project on System Approach 3.9 Political Model 3.4 Sabatier’s Model 3.8 Bureaucratic Process Model 3.ix LIST OF FIGURES Figures 2.Attainment Approach 3.14 The Purposed Model for Analysis 4.10 General Model 3.2 The Results of the Hypothesized Model of Successful Implementation of the Industrial Cluster in Thailand 5.5 Rational Model 3.11 Effectiveness of Industrial Cluster Project on Goal .

2010).106 enterprises. the total number of SMEs is the biggest portion in the Thai economy and the number of SMEs in Thailand has increased rapidly. the government needs to promote and support the work procedures of the private sector in order to increase overall national productivity. which are not different in performance from the cheap products of China and other countries. the Thai government has initiated significant policy concerning an increase in Thai competitiveness and the policy has been counted as a national agenda and a major strategy. To pursue the strategy. Therefore. it needs to have an instrument for increasing competitiveness.884. which is the industrial cluster. However.065 medium enterprises. many studies have stated that SMEs are the most important part in propelling the national economy since they represent the largest portion and are easily adaptable. 2007). the government and private sector have to collaborate in order to achieve the same goal. 2008. The total number of enterprises in Thailand in 2009 was 2. 99. SMEs accounted for 99.653 large enterprises. Local industry and traditional industry.CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1. There were 4.896. have suffered from a significant drop in sales due to increases in imports.900. Thus. Thai SMEs currently have exerted pressure on profits due to the reduction of unit costs because of the “China rate” and the current rise in material prices.1 Statement of the Problems In Thailand.6 percent. 99. A competitiveness strategy will lead to sustainable development and prosperity for the industrial economics of Thailand. Moreover. of which SMEs accounted for 2.8 percent of all enterprises in 2007.759. which is increasing competitiveness. However. . In order to implement industrial clusters.041 small enterprises and 12.7 percent. the Thai government has included an industrial cluster policy in its 10th National Economics and Social Development Plan (NESDB. including 2. and 2009 rapidly (OSMEP.

During the 1990s. however. 1998). and evaluation of implementing the cluster.55 million baht in fiscal year 2006 and 2007. Silicon Valley). the DIP is the one that sets up the principles. budget allowances and assistances for the cluster will be decreased year by year in order to encourage industrial clusters to be self-sustaining after 5 years. Ministry of Industry has been assigned to be main organizations to implement the industrial cluster since 2006 throughout every region in Thailand. In the 1970s and 1980s. the concept of the cluster is now very well known.g. The DIP had implemented 21 industrial clusters in 2006 and 22 industrial clusters in 2007 during the first and second year of implementation. respectively. work procedures. For implementing the industrial cluster.g. clusters were widely recognized as important settings in stimulating the productivity and innovativeness of companies and in the formation of new businesses since the work of Harvard Business School’s Professor Michael Porter (1990). It is also possible that only small firms should be involved in co-operatives in order to attain these economies or only large firms should participate in a cluster in order to develop a certain specialization (Muizer and Hospers. ‘Third Italy’) and high technology products (e. Actually. which large firms often do have. the DIP will take 5 years continuously to start up and promote them with input budgets and needed assistance. monitoring. . the Department of Industrial Promotion (DIP). Large firms may not possess the specialized knowledge of SMEs.2 The reason that Thai government has chosen industrial cluster policy to be a tool to boost Thai SMEs’ competitiveness in order to reduce uncertainty and to maintain their competitiveness is because SMEs may be willing to develop new products but do not have the economies of scale or scope in their R&D functions. in the Competitive Advantage of Nation popularized the concept. Thus.06 million baht and 12. The yearly allocated budgets from the DIP for implementing the industrial cluster were 20. and following. SMEs do not necessarily have to co-operate with large firms. clusters established a strong position in the world market for both traditional products (e. For developing industrial clusters. Through co-operation. the cluster concept has attracted the attention of both academics and policymakers for a long time. a trade-off can be realized between a large and a small firm. Regarding the pursuit of the cluster policy. In order to attain the economies of scale or scope.

In terms .3 1.3 Objectives of the Study The research objectives aim mainly to study the factors contributing to the success of industrial cluster implementation in Thailand. 1) What are the criteria for identifying the effectiveness and efficiency of the industrial cluster? 2) What are the major factors contributing to the success of implementing the industrial cluster? 3) What are the suggestions for improving the implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand? 1. Both stages take in to account for successful policy. the outcome from the research can represent the entire picture of the Thai industrial cluster. 3) To offer suggestions for improving the implementation of the industrial cluster. 2) To identify the factors that lead to successful industrial cluster implementation in Thailand from an implementation perspective. The research will focus on industrial clusters that have been implemented by the DIP since the DIP is the main organization that is employing the industrial cluster in Thailand. The two objectives of this study are as follows: 1) To study the criteria for the effectiveness and efficiency of the industrial cluster. Moreover. 1. the following questions must be studied.2 Research Questions In order to understand the implementation of the industrial cluster specified in the above objectives. effectiveness and efficiency will be firstly calculated to determine the success of the industrial cluster before identifying the factors leading to the success of industrial cluster implementation in Thailand. therefore. through studying those factors.4 Significance of the Study Policy implementation has recently been viewed as an important stage in achieving policy goals.

Thailand faced an economic recession since the GDP growth rate was 2. and SMEs are one of the most significant economic sectors for stimulating the Thai economy. and after that.3 Source: NESDB.and -2. Thus.0 2007 4. the promotion type and the enforcement type) share the same factors. As seen in table 1. the table shows the growth rate of the domestic product (GDP).4 of academic benefit.e.9 percent.5 Scope of the Study 1) Scope of Time Frame For the study.1 below. In terms of benefit for the economy. the GDP growth rate in 2007 was 4.3 percent in 2009. The lessons learned from study regarding the factors contributing to the success of industrial cluster implementation will be beneficial for developing cluster policy or similar policies to meet optimal objectives in the future. this research will attempt to identify and test the factors/variables that affect the successful policy. The findings of this study may be useful for comparing similar implementations in order to see if different types of policy (i. it found that Thailand faced the situation of declining economy since 2008 due to the investors lack of confidence to invest in Thailand since unstable Thai political situation. 1. . the second year (2007) of the DIP’s implementation will be focused on because the DIP had gained experience for implementing the industrial clusters in the second year.5 2006 5. If considering the year after 2007. 2010. initiating industrial clusters is a powerful instrument for boosting Thai economic indicators since most industrial cluster members are compose of SMEs. Table 1. the second year is the best period for study.9 2008 2.5 2009 -2.5 percent in 2008.1 The Growth Rate of the GDP Year GDP 2005 4. the first year (2006) was the first time that the DIP had implemented the industrial clusters.

2 Names of Industrial Clusters Promoted by the DIP. and the details are illustrated below. . Fiscal Year 2007 No. 2007. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Industrial Clusters Furniture Leather 1st Craft Bangkok Gems and Jewelry Silk Products Chonburi Automotive / Machinery Parts Eastern Parawood Products Processing Oranges Processing Longan Mulberry Paper Textiles Processing Pig Products Processing Seafood Rice Processing Rice Processing Engines Ceramics Rice Mills Suphanburi Food Industry Parawood Rice Mills Silk Product Ubon Bangkok Bangkok and Suburban Area Bangkok and Suburban Area Kanchanaburi Province Khonkaen Province Chonburi Province Chonburi Province Chiangmai Province Chiangmai Province Chiangmai Province Chiangmai Province Nakornratchasima Province Nakhonsithammarat Province Pichit Province Phitsanulok Province Phitsanulok Province Lampang Province Suphanburi Province Suphanburi Province Suratthani Province Udornthani Province Ubonratchathani Province Province Source: DIP.5 2) Scope of Industrial Clusters Twenty-two industrial clusters will be studied. Table 1.

. policy standards and objectives can greatly assist implementers in the task of translating policy standards and objectives into effective and efficient projects. measurable. The existence of clear. 3) The result of dissertation will provide recommendations for implementers to develop higher quality work for industrial cluster implementation in order to implement more successful industrial clusters in the future.7 Definition of Terms 1) Ability of cluster members and policy implementers This ability refers to ability and cognition regarding the project as well as the ability to adjust procedure to obtain maximum benefit for the project. 2) The policy of industrial cluster implementation can be applied to other similar implementation models for a shorter period of learning and for developing appropriate models for the future. 2) Clarity of goal Policy standards and objectives are clear and measurable. advice.6 Research Contribution 1) To gain knowledge about what factors are significant in creating industrial cluster implementation success since cluster development is a government policy for enhancing Thai competitiveness. 2007). and assistance.6 1. The definition extends to the giving and receiving of information. 1. The National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB) states that SMEs are a power engine to stimulate the country’s economy and cluster development mainly focuses on SMEs (NESDB. 3) Cluster A group of related businesses and the associated government agencies and educational institutions that gather together through learning processes and interdependencies to manage common meso-economic problems in order to achieve higher economic performance and long-term competitiveness. 4) Communication Inter-communications between implementing units and cluster members are efficient and beneficial.

also expressed in monetary terms. relative to their costs. this is selected from the study of industrial cluster implementation that appears in chapter 3. 6) Efficiency Measurement is the gain of benefit over the project break-even. 8) Participation of stakeholders Stakeholders are willing to comply with industrial cluster projects. This research will employ the Ministry of In . 1) the manufacturing sector.2.2. (2) The 2nd criteria for effectiveness is the evaluation of the benefit of being an industrial cluster or the system approach. namely. 7) Management ability It refers the ability to apply measures/regulations efficiently. 9) Perceived support The level of financial. It means that the result of enterprises that join the industrial cluster project for doing business will lead to economic benefits for the whole and greater than the cost of utilized resources. it indicates that the benefit from investment is equal to or greater than the cost. All benefits and costs should be expressed in discounted present values. 2) the trading sector. The term quality of a project is also defined as the levels of satisfaction with the project determined by policy implementers and customers. The B/C ratio is the ratio of the benefits of a project.7 5) Effectiveness The achievement of industrial clusters stems from two criteria: (1) The 1st criterion of effectiveness is the evaluation of pursuing the industrial cluster project or goal attainment approach. this is derived from the DIP’s term of reference (TOR). and human resources is supported to DIP for the purpose of fulfilling the industrial cluster project. 11) Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) SMEs comprise 3 business sectors. stakeholders demonstrate continuity and consistency. If the B/C ratio is equal to or greater than 1. administrative. and 3) the services sector. section 3. section 3. expressed in monetary terms. 10) Quality of project The levels of structure in the industrial cluster are completed. The concept of efficiency that will be used in the dissertation is measured by the benefit-cost ratio (B/C ratio). The details are illustrated in chapter 3. addition.

awareness. 12) Successful Implementation The term means quantifying the degree of “goal fulfillment” or “project attained.100 30 . 2001.3 Criteria for Classifying SMEs Type of Enterprises Employment (person) Small Medium 51-200 26-50 16-30 51-200 Asset Value (million Baht) Small Not More than 50 Not More than 50 Not More than 30 Not More than 50 Medium 50 . and experience of the target group. 2002) using employment and asset as criteria.200 Manufacturing Trade (wholesales) Trade (retails) Services Not more than 50 Not more than 25 Not more than 15 Not more than 50 Source: OSMEP. In the study. .8 Industry’s SME definition of SMEs (as in the Ministry of Industry’s Rule/Announcement dated August 11.60 50 .200 50 . successful implementation requires two criteria: effectiveness and efficiency.” It accounts for the continuity. Table 1. implementation methods. The following are the criteria for classifying SMEs according to the rule.

The new era of private enterprises began with the first National Economic and Social Development Plan in 1950s. . however. and how industrial clusters are doing in Thailand.1 Review of National Industrial Development Policy The new era of the economic development of Thailand came with the launch of the first five years of the National Economic Development Plan in 1961.CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF INDUSTRIAL CLUSTER IMPLEMENTATION The study of the factors affecting industrial cluster implementation is needed in order to learn more about the characteristics of the industrial cluster in success and failure cases. the background of national industry development cannot be forgotten since this is connected to why industrial clusters are needed. The industrial policy concentrated on the import-substitution industrialization and in favor of private enterprises. The second plan of the National Economic and Social Development Plan (1967-1971) continued its support of the import-substitution industrialization policy. went bankrupt due to inefficiency and mismanagement. maize. textile. The government stated in the plan that it would assist and support local industries’ activities for both domestic and foreign firms. cigarette. teak. the background of national industry development can broaden our views regarding national industry. 2. The first Investment Promotion Act was introduced during this plan in 1960. In addition. kenaf. However. and tin. when there was public investment in the pulp and paper. The industrialization beginning the first phase in Thailand started around 1936. the Thai economy depended on agricultural products such as rice. Prior to this. and food processing industries. Many of these public firms. The first plan of the National Economic and Social Development Plan (1961-1966) emphasized the role of government in investing in infrastructure. rubber.

the government first tried to neutralize the tariffs on import. market arrangement. Moreover. The fifth National Economic and Social Development Plan (1982-1986) formulated measures for expanding industrial estates and for strengthening preferential taxes for industries located in the provinces. During this period. In 1982. small (provincial) industries were explicitly given attention for the first time. The attempt was to reduce the importation of intermediate goods in order to decrease the balance of trade and balance of payment deficit. In the fourth plan large scale exporting firms were encouraged and an export-processing zone was established. the government announced a reduction on import tariffs for processed food imports from 80 percent to 60 percent. this neutralization did not succeed. the government was forced to reduce the tariffs in several intermediate and capital goods categories. Along with the provincial promotion. export promotion continued. The relocation of industries had continued since the higher incentives provided to investors who invested outside the Bangkok area. In export-led industrialization. when the export-led growth industrial policy replaced the old import substitution policy. From the fourth National Economic and Social Development Plan (19771981) to the seventh plan (1992-1996). The third National Economic and Social Development Plan (1972-1976) had an important chance. while increasing tariffs on chemicals and machinery to 30 percent in order to neutralize the tariff system. Incentives for export-oriented firms were provided by the Board of Investment (BOI). . However. Measures like credit.10 emphasizing the industries that utilized domestic raw materials and labor intensive industries. technical assistance. risk assurance. an additional 10 percent surcharge was imposed on almost all imports in order to finance the serious budget deficit. The Thai government began to recognize this problem and the decentralized industrial policy became another feature of industry policy. the problem of the concentration on industries was in the capital city and suburban area because of the lack of infrastructure in the other areas of Thailand. and assessment of investment prospects were provided to provincial small and medium size industries.

the King’s principle. agro-based industries. the National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB) and the Department of Industrial Promotion (DIP) of the Ministry of Industry. the diversification of the export market and the location of industrial setting is focused on concern. and which ensured that all Thai people would receive a fairer share of the benefits of development than they had in past plans. This success. It seemed that the eighth plan had a direction in which national development had to fulfill the major long-term goals. Thus. From the sixth plan. large or small.” The theme of sufficiency . In the eighth National Economics and Social Development Plan (19972001). the DIP gave equal priority to all industrial sectors. the cooperation and participation of agencies concerned the formulation and implementation of every project. Unfortunately. This implied that the development of every project was needed to come from people-centered and supported projects by part of all the Thai population. the export sector was very successful. Referring to the ninth National Economic and Social Development Plan (2002-2006). and the diversification of manufacturing products and exports. sustainable. while the NESDB industrial development plan was obscured by the bigger plan of the eastern seaboard development. the eighth plan turned out to be more focused on shifting the development paradigm from a segmented approach to holistic. however. The NESDB’s task was to formulate an industrial development plan and the DIP’s responsibility as to promote and help the industrial sector. the ninth plan began with the national development framework adopted by H. seemed to dazzle the public authorities into turning away from the continuing campaign to promote small and medium size and rural industries (Krongkaew. 1988).M. emphasis was placed on the re-structuring of tax incentives. after emphasis was placed on expanding the industrial sector in order to stimulate the Thai economy. with the goal of achieving a pattern of development which as efficient.11 In the sixth National Economic and Social Development Plan (1987-1991). With a holistic approach. As a result. people-centered development. named “sufficiency economy. As industrial development proceeded in the seventh National Economic and Social Development Plan (1992-1996). the promotion of SMIs was more or less at a standstill during this period. small and medium size industry (SMI) development was the responsibility of two agencies.

In this plan. Regarding the economic side. . It emphasized that development required the continuity of economic stability. Thailand faced a major chance in many contexts. and Thai-ness. and people. the ninth plan focused on economic development for sustainability. the “middle path. Thailand’s goods were supposed to create value-added goods while retaining the Thai identity as differentiated from competitors. society. including opportunities to expand the economy and constraints for national development. Both required full preparation to adapt to future change and to reap benefits by keeping up with globalization and building resilience in all sector since accordance with the sufficiency economy philosophy. services. Thailand had to emphasize upgrading management of inter-country capital movements and to be fully prepared for fluctuations of currency values and interest rates in the world market. The tenth National Economic and Social Development Plan (2007-2011) was formulated to serve the continuity of the sufficiency economy philosophy from the 9th plan. The strategies to reform the structure of the economy for balance and sustainability were to reform the production structure to increase productivity and enhance the value of products and services. Thailand had to use an aggressive approach to trade policy both in expanding markets and in encouraging domestic producers to improve their competitiveness on the foundation of knowledge. and the environment. the economy. and economic growth required the benefit of the majority of the population. The tenth plan focused on increasing inter-country flows of capital.” The “middle path” was defined as the strategy to steer the country through a series of crises to a sustainable and quality presence in the world community. Production and consumption served to improve life quality and respect for the environment. goods. In addition.12 economy related to a balance between the people. The three components had an equal importance so that it was called by another name. The economic strategy for the ninth plan stated that Thailand needed to improve production methods in order to be more competitive in the global scale. natural resources.

For example. The exemption was import duties.13 2. Currently. 4) Investment Incentives by the Board of Investment (BOI) The investment incentives in Thailand are provided by the Board Of Investment (BOI). The import restriction attempted to protect domestic producers in the fields of automobiles. import restrictions are limited to very few products. The reason for the objective of the domestic content requirement was to stimulate domestic industry activities in order to make domestic businesses more competitive. 1) Duty and Tax Exemption Duty and Tax exemption have been provided by the Customs Department of the Ministry of Finance since 1971. there were only 65 products that required import licenses. The Board is chaired by the Prime Minister and has the function of providing privileges to the desired industries. the measures to promote industrial development can be summarized as follows. 2) Quantitative Import Restrictions The restrictions were considered to be modest in Thailand compared to other NICs. in 1973 the motorcycle industry was required 50 percent of domestic content and it was required 15-25 percent for the car assembly industry. 16 products were banned while 35 products were subject to approval. Group B consists of the assembling . and the shipbuilding industry. The BOI usually categorizes industries into 3 groups. etc. steel and iron. and multiple taxes on imported materials used in export production. Quantitative restrictions were administered by the Ministry of Commerce. 3) Domestic Content Requirements Under the Factory Act. business taxes. Currently. engines.2 Industrial Promotion Measures from the 1st to the 10th Plan During this period. domestic content requirements could be imposed by the Ministry of Industry. The BOI has discretionary authority to determine the list of activities that are eligible for promotion. In 1986. Group A includes mainly capital intensive industries such as chemicals. As of 1980. The proportion of content required varied according the products. automobiles. electrical appliances. which is supported by the Industrial Promotion Act of 1960. domestic content requirements are made only of the milk industry.

Group A. and telecommunications. 5) Industrial Promotional Zone In the past. and hotels services. the above categories were abolished. is usually the one to benefit most from the BOI. except that there was a merger between Group A and Group B. however. (3) The firms were located in promotion zones. The maximum of a five-year tax holiday is still active. (1) The firms located outside Bangkok. the SME is still not a target of these measures. Tax incentive for exporting firms is now the same as the privilege given to group A in the 1960s and 1970s. . The incentives given to 3 groups were: (1) Group A: Full exemption from import duties and business and sales taxes on raw material for five years. In the mid 1980s. the incentives were still the same and three types of firms qualified for promotion assistance. import duties and business taxes were reduced by the maximum of 90 percent. including food processing. the clothing and textile industries. This is again still biased in favor of big firms. However. firms enjoyed being located in Bangkok because Bangkok has superior facilities. (3) Group C: An exemption of one-third of import duty and business and sales taxes for five years. (2) Group B: A 50 percent exemption from import duties and business sale taxes for five years.14 industries. regarding the other types of investment mentioned earlier. Group C concerns mainly the labor intensive and service industries. transportation. including a seaport. It can be observed that policy during this period was in favor of large industry and SMEs did not meet the criteria of either one of those three groups. There was no major change in this incentive during the 1970s. (2) Export-oriented firms (firms that export at least 80 percent of their capacity). However. such as transport-equipment assembly. and electrical appliance assembly. airport. The tax incentives given to firms have remained similar to those provided in the original Investment Promotion Act. agricultural-machinery assembly. Although tax incentives from the BOI explicitly support rural industry which is by nature small and medium.

Bangpoo. as almost owned by the government. This was because the Thai budget could not provide enough facility to every region. Bangkok faced a bottleneck of development. and water supply and water treatment at the same time in one location. and in Songkha in the south. Lad Kabang in Central of Thailand. and in Khonkaen in the Northeast. tried to decentralize the industry more to other regions. pollution. The Thai government. the largest shareholder. created by providing facilities to the group of industries in that zone. and limited access to superior facilities and services. therefore. The problem was that the government had to provide enough compensation for what the firms lost when located outside Bangkok. telephone. An export processing zone was also established for the export of manufacturing. Problem with traffic. However. Bangkok contains the biggest market and biggest distribution network. The incentives of the credit by the IFCT and other tax incentives were relatively small and could not offset the increasing cost of transportation. the customs department also provided location services for customs’ procedures (and the import material in this zone did not have to pay any duty when the item arrived. thus there was no need have to wait for a rebate). The Industrial Estate Authority of Thailand was established to set up the industrial estate. The IFCT provide . and congestion were abundant. Moreover. increasing transportation costs to the biggest market. The function of the IFCT was to provide loans to industrial projects. Unlike than the incentive given by the BOI. and to the port.15 Bangkok is also the center of all government services and the bank system. Industrial estates have been established at Bang Chan. including the lack of good facilities such as electricity. Bangkok. the industrial estate took advantage of the economy of scale by creating facilities such as electricity. Krung Thai Bank. 6) Soft Loans by the Industrial Finance Corporation of Thailand (IFCT) and the Small industry Finance Office (SIFO) The IFCT was established in 1959 as a privately-owned company. telecommunications. The investment promotion zone was. therefore. The industries in the special zone also received privileges from the BOI. After several decades of development. etc. The zone was usually established near the port in order to reduce the transportation costs of imported materials and from finished products to the port.

especially technicians. the BOI provides incentives by reducing the tariffs on all imported R&D equipment. The SIFO was established in 1964 and was managed by Krung Thai Bank. The objective of this organization was to provide financing for small-scale industry. The educational institutions . it was more convenient for entrepreneurs to borrow from a commercial bank. there has been an expansion in education to support both in elementary and higher education. and field workers in computers and communication. the Electricity Generation Authority of Thailand has rebated 20 percent of electricity use in the production of export activities since 1972. especially on industrial fields. Thus. The role of university research is minimal due to the limited budget. Since the developing countries have to complete with developed countries that are using automated techniques to regain competition in labor intensive products. the skilled manpower is still inadequate. 7) Electricity Rebate To reduce the cost of exporters.5 percent lower rate for activities outside Bangkok. engineers. Regarding the incentive aspect. This is one of the agencies that the government created solely for SMEs. the finances through this channel were relatively small since the organization had no branches and Krung Thai bank was very conservative in lending.16 interest rate incentives by giving a 1 percent lower interest rate than the commercial bank rate to the food processing and agricultural industry and gave a 0. However. the ability of developing countries therefore depends on the availability of 1) a skilled and adaptable workforce. The direct intervention is very small. there is still a lack of skilled labor. There are only a few government studies. and 2) scientific and technological manpower capable of linking Thailand to international technology and modifications to suit local conditions. However. Moreover. the Thai government has realized the importance of labor. However. 8) Technology and Manpower Policy Science technology and manpower development are very important in the development in East Asia. Regarding manpower policy.

becoming a society of quality people. and particularly for cottage industries. most of the government training programs were in art craft and agricultural fields. Other measures were on the financial side. Most of training programs had done by the DIP. supply chains. In term of training programs. which will lead to the restructuring of manufacturing and trade in a direction that will pave the way towards a strengthened self-sufficient economy. a knowledge-based economy. The measures for SMEs have been limited to skill development by the Department for Industrial Promotion. The SMEs’ problems have been mentioned but no direct policy/measure has been formulated. Thai culture. the priority of the measures was not to promote SMEs. From the above-mentioned summarized plans and measures. a clear sign of the Thai government supporting SMEs can be seen in the ninth National Economic and Social Development Plan (2002-2006). there is very high proportion of students in non S&Ts compared to that of other countries. When we look at educational institutions. and biodiversity. The very high gap between the salary between public education institutions and commercial private industry also forced qualified educational staff out. to create products that . The main strategy to promote SMEs is this plan to increase the capabilities and competitiveness of the country through promotion of SMEs as a means to create employment and to expand and stabilize the production base. such as South Korea. the government training programs are very limited. The tools for increasing the capability of SMEs are the cluster development approach. Most of the policies were biased toward large-scale industry. where SME promotion is a mean to developing national economy to achieve the desired objective. and a society whereby all sectors cooperate towards a common purpose. which is for Thai society to attain strength and stability in three areas.17 producing science and technology manpower remain severely constrained in terms of both resources needed to keep up with advance sin knowledge and to maintain modern facilities and in terms of retaining quality staff. namely. However. and the Small Industry Finance Office (SIFO) has also been created but their role in helping SMEs is still very limited. and community networks on a foundation of modern knowledge and local wisdom.

discourses and debates on the concept have been widely undertaken among academicians. and brands that command market acceptance. and services. for example. suppliers of specialized inputs such as components. the stabilization of prices and rates of exchange. 9) To Promote Conditions for More Rapid Economic Recovery In terms of fiscal policy. spatial proximity and benefits is derived from increased scales. 2. and providers of specialized infrastructure. The first scholar that was the most influential person in the cluster field. the government considers the maintenance of adequate liquidity. The term cluster became really famous since Michael E.18 have high quality and high value. the slowing of capital out flows. Porter introduced the cluster concept in his 1990 book. Actually. Clusters encompass an array of linked industries and other entities important to competition. Michael Porter. International trade policy is designed to support changes in production structure and to increase competitiveness. Clusters also often extend downstream to channels and customers and laterally to . For monetary policy. policymakers. machinery. It draws on various perspectives or schools of thought to define the term ‘cluster’ as it will be used in the study. This section aims to provide a basic understanding of the concept. the concept of cluster development has gained massive attention from scholars.3 Review of the Cluster Concept Over decades. agglomeration. “The Competitive Advantage of Nations. and Thai overseas investment will be promoted. the government has started to speed up economic recovery through appropriate tax measures and the acceleration of government budgetary disbursement. In addition. laws and regulations have to be amended. the term “cluster” by highlighting economic geographical concentration. and various standards and systems have been adjusted. and maintaining the balance of payment surpluses at an appropriate level.” Since then. They include. and practitioners. suggests defining cluster in comprehensive way: “Clusters are geographic concentrations of interconnected companies and institutions in a particular field. a good investment atmosphere will be cultivated to attract foreign investment.

linked by commonalities and complementarities. and trade associations. Prevezer. 1998: 1) Enright (1996: 191) recommends that “[a] regional cluster is an industrial cluster in which member firms are in close proximity to each other. standard-setting agencies.” The OECD’s 1999 definition of cluster placed more emphasis on knowledgebased activities and collective learning: “clusters are networks of interdependent firms.” Swann and Prevezer (1996: 139) mention cluster as groups of firms within one industry based in one geographical area. or common inputs. many clusters include governmental and other institutions. (2001: 163) suggest something looser: a tendency for firms in similar types of business to locate close together. bridging institutions and customers. even though their scale of employment may not be pronounced or prominences. and technical support” (Porter. think tanks. Braun and Van Winden (2001: 187) define the clusters most closely related to the local or regional dimension of networks. The definition of cluster refers to a large group of firms in related industries at a particular location (Swann. vocational training providers. as it captures all forms of knowledge sharing and exchange and it also goes beyond traditional sectoral analysis” (OECD. 1998a: 78).19 manufacturers of complementary products and to companies in industries related by skills.that provide specialized training. Finally. services and/or knowledge. Feser (1998: 26) recommend that “Economic . His view of cluster goes over the school of thought of business administration and strategy.such as universities. knowledge-producing institutions. Also. 2006). technologies. education.” Van den Berg. linked in a production chain which creates added value. Porter (1998b) gave another shorter definition of cluster: “A cluster is a geographically proximate group of interconnected companies and associated institutions in a particular field. Rosenfeld (1997: 4) defines the term cluster in the following: “[a cluster] is very simple used to represent concentrations of firms that are able to produce synergy because of their geographical proximity and interdependence. information. Crouch et al. The concept of cluster goes beyond that of firm networking. Most definitions share the notion of clusters as localized networks of specialized organizations. though without having a particularly important presence in an area. whose production processes are closely linked through the exchange of goods. A short period later. Some scholars add the idea of business benefit for forming a strong cluster. research. and Stout.

with the presence of a skilled labor pool and firms providing specialized output. they define “an innovative cluster as a large number of interconnected industrial and/or service companies having a high degree of collaboration. but rather related and supporting institutions that are more competitive by virtue of their relationships.” In addition. Another perspective of cluster is to add on innovation to the cluster making many clusters more successful as discussed by Simmie and Sennett (1999: 51). 2) The institutional dimension: clustering as an interactive learning process between economic competent firms and other institutions generating and utilizing new technologies.” Another definition of cluster in term of “characterizing as networks of producers of strongly interdependent firms (including specialized suppliers) linked each other in a value-adding production chain” (Roelandt and Den Hertog. . 4) The vertical dimension: clustering of synergetic interdependent firms (suppliers. 1) The geographical dimension: localized clustering of economic activities. The figure illustrates that market trends have resulted in the growing strategic need for firms to increase their competitiveness. industry clusters can be classified according to the dimensions shown in figure 2. Also. because of a lack of resources and in order to obtain economies of scale and/or scope in their innovation activities. 1999: 9). However. firms and especially SMEs are increasingly forced to cluster. there are direct competitors outside the cluster on the product market. One of the most ways of doing so is to develop an innovation strategy. In Jacobs and de Man’s view.20 clusters are not just related and supporting industries and institutions. typically through a supply chain. 3) The horizontal dimension: the clustering of firms that perform similar activities.1 below. main producers. and operating under the same market conditions. and users) in a value chain of a certain product. mainly in a region. Jacob and De Man (1996) mention that the term cluster can be seen in a multidimensional approach that combines various dimensions.

1 Framework for Defining the Industrial Cluster Source: Jacob and De Man. 1996. 3) specialization based on .21 Market Trends Competitiveness Innovation Clustering Vertical Geographical Cluster Horizontal Institution Figure 2. Based on the many cluster definitions by famous scholars as shown above. namely. 1) geographic proximity or co-location of firms and related businesses. 2) interdependencies or linkages of activities of firms in a value chain with other related/supporting industries and agencies. the definition of cluster that will be used for this dissertation will have four key characteristics.

and visions. the term cluster can be defined after the combination of four key characteristics above as a group of related businesses and associated government agencies and educational institutions that gather together through learning processes and interdependencies to manage common meso-economic problems in order to achieve higher economic performance and long-term competitiveness. a number of clusters are based in just one part of a country and are not national as such. include companies that produce end-products. However. or local economies in advanced countries (Porter. “The Competitive Advantage of Nations. specialized suppliers and service providers. standard agencies. as stated in the cluster definition above. 1998a: 199f). 1998a: 197f). Thus. input. which could be found in most national. Often the cluster will also have companies in various stages of the supply chain of the industry (Porter.” Porter introduced the concept of industrial cluster as a critical mass of very competitive firms within particular business fields. 2. according to Porter. (Porter. However.3. 2003: 253). machinery and services. In his 1990 book. The extent of the cluster and its geographical location is not very specific. Clusters can differ widely according to the degree of sophistication and the depth of the cluster but must. Porter’s cluster concept has since been developed and the following definition is often used: Cluster are geographic concentrations of interconnected companies. location is a crucial part of the cluster concept since theory seeks to describe how competitiveness is obtained within geographically proximate groups of related businesses and companies. this definition will be used for the study. and trade association) in particular fields that compete but also co-operate. and 4) shared norms. and associated institutions (for example universities. values. firms in related industries.22 knowledge sharing and spillover. The geographic extent of the cluster can vary from a single city or country/region to a whole country or even two or more neighboring countries (Porter 2003: 254). as well as financial institutions and related industries. specialized suppliers of components. Porter. Porter starts out describing the cluster as a national industrial agenda. but rather . 1998a: 199. regional.1 Discussion of Cluster The cluster concept is linked to cluster theory as developed by Michael E. Porter.

2003: 254). information. 2003: 4). furniture. suppliers. and specialized institutions Participants are direct or indirect competitors Incorporate the array of interrelated industries sharing technology. Clusters within the same industry can differ widely. 2003: 4). The region is often used as an expression of the geographical extent of a cluster. they also exist in more traditional industries such as forest products. inputs. Clusters exist in virtually every type of business. Although it is often industries with high profiles such as information technology. for example. Ketels. as illustrated in below table. 2003: 100. service providers. or because the clusters target selected customers or market segments (Ketels. and channels • Hesitancy to co-operate with rivals • Most participants are not direct . because they specialize within a particular field of the supply chain of the industry. whether concerned with manufacturing of goods or provision of services (Porter. financial services. The definition of cluster is very broad and thus it is possible for it to encompass many different types of clusters with individual features.1 Industries/Sectors Versus Industrial Clusters Industries / Sectors • Focus on one or a few end product industries • • • Industrial Clusters Include customers. skills. and pharmaceuticals that are mentioned as examples of successful clusters. have a specific focus on a geographical area.23 local or regional. customers. Porter (1997) claims there are differences between the tradition industrial sector and the industrial cluster. and machinery (Enright. Table 2.

The first stage is the established or embryonic cluster. protection. Porter (1997) provides a concept of the industrial cluster and industrial sector. and limiting rivalry • Wide scope for improvements on areas of common concern that will improve productivity and raise the plane of competition • • Lower return on investments • • Leverages public and private investments Risk of dulling local competition A forum for more constructive and efficient businessgovernment dialogue Source: Porter. and it causes the concept of the industrial cluster has been transformed to the real practice by the policy makers. The cluster is formed to relate to the stage of development of the economy and competition. which is the growth cluster. there is a room for growth. many scholars have argued that the idea of the cluster is not different from the industry assembly such an industry association. Previously. 1997.1 (Continued) Industries / Sectors Industrial Clusters competitors but share common needs and constraints • Dialogue with government often gravitates towards subsidy. and with this stage. According to Porter an economy–local and national–can compete mainly . The third stage is the mature cluster which is stable but might not experience growth any more and might be on its way to becoming the fourth stage or the declining cluster. his concept is very interesting to the policy makers. which is the starting point of cluster development and will develop to be the second stage. A declining cluster can possibly be reinvented and enter into a new lifecycle.24 Table 2. Clusters can be observed going through a lifecycle with four distinct stages (Porter 1998a: 237ff). which experiences failing growth.

the cluster mainly provides potential for increasing the productivity in terms of labor and production cost (Porter and Ketels. namely. Porter has previously introduced two strategies. whereas in the investment driven development stage. but financial crises and changes in demand can cause disruptions. and a society should ideally develop continuously and move from one mode to the next. in figure 2. The competitive position of a company is closely related to the competitive strategy pursued by the company. and the competitive advantages gained are more long lived. 1990: 49ff). “The factor driven mode” – competitive advantage stems from low labor and natural resource costs. This advantage is relatively short lived. natural. The differentiation strategies can be based on both big and small changes and they can be obtained through both the production and the product. and will provide the economy with long term competitive advantages. First. Roelandt and Den Hertog (1999). The modes are outlined below.the competitive advantage comes from the ability to produce innovative goods using the most advanced technology. “The investment driven mode”. represented clusters at different levels of aggregation. Macro or mega level clusters are composed of linkages within and between industry groups. the wages will rise and the advantage will be lost. but it is when the economy is innovation driven that highly developed innovative clusters occur. because when the economy develops. which indicate specialization patterns in the economic structure of a . and capital resource input in the production of or relocating of the production where the required input is cheaper. in low-wage countries. Cost reduction can be obtained through reducing human. If pursuing a differentiation strategy the competitive advantages gained are more lasting due to the difficulties competitors have imitating them. Clusters occur within all three economic development stages. and the wages higher.25 within three different modes. for instance. the cost reduction and the differentiation strategy. there are macro clusters referring to the national level. Investments are required. “The innovation driven mode”.2 below.competitive advantages are based on the efficiency in the production of standard products. Continuous investments are a part of the differentiation strategy as well as innovation (Porter. 2003: 42f).

micro clusters at the firm level are of importance in the economy. region) Origin Mapping studies.26 country. leadership. factor conditions. and other organizations Success factors Critical mass. Nauwelaers (2003) has used Roelandt and Den Hertog’s (1999) concept in classifying different levels of aggregation. valuechain. vision. one can think of the network of firms and the knowledge infrastructure of the Dutch flower cluster. specialized suppliers are linked to one or a few core firms. In this case.2 Nawelaers’s Summary Regarding Classifying Different Levels of Aggregation Mega cluster Level Macro Meso Driving force Competitiveness of the area (country. Second. entrepreneurship. efficient intermediaries. firms. demand. social capital. communication. knowledge flows Enterprises dynamics SMEs (other firms) Competitiveness of enterprises Local network Micro Knowledge-based Micro Meso Technological development. Table 2. As an example of a meso cluster. match in specializations.2 below. Strategic analyses Main components Sectors. Finally. adapted labor market Geographic proximity. clusters can be concentrated in sectors or regions. Such clusters can be found at the meso level of the economy and are made up of linkages within and between industries or regions. innovation Knowledge flows Science-industry Enterprises and research centers . as seen in table 2. scale economies. Nauwelaers (2003) has added alternative names to each level. competence base Adequate regulatory and institutional framework.

European Commission. 2. Roelandt and Den Hertog (1997) and Nauwelaers (2003). the study was focused on Thai industrial clusters.2 Success Factors of Cluster Development There are some factors that are associated with the success and failure of cluster development. 2006). as follows (Ketels.27 Mega-level Clusters Meso-level Clusters Micro-level Clusters Figure 2. .3.2 Clusters at Different Levels of Aggregation Source: Roelandt and Den Hertog (1997) Note: Rectangle represents ‘enterprise’ Oval represents ‘research center’ In both sources. 2003. and those clusters will be mostly classified as meso-level clusters in the present study.

companies. Fifth. while government tends to be more interested in job creation than higher productivity. cluster development seems to be more successful if they are based on the sharing of a conceptual framework of competitiveness. and innovation.28 First. to develop cluster. for example. In fact. educational and research organizations. interaction between research. and thus provides a clear value added for implementing adequate and concrete actions. If such a resource is not available. etc. for example. cluster development needs to address specific barriers that businesses face in a given market and focuses on the capabilities of the stakeholders as well as on most promising international technology and market development perspectives. education. cluster development seems to be more successful if it is focused on a cluster already strong and set in a location with a good business environment. Third. which are key drivers of the knowledge-based economy. to involve all relevant stakeholders of the innovation system – multiple levels of government and public agencies. cluster development is very difficult to sustain over time. This is consistent with the view that cluster development should focus on activating clusters rather than trying to create them from scratch. it is required strengthens the strategic capabilities of all regional actors and thus. Fourth. It is also consistent with the perspective that cluster development is more successful if they are part of a broader strategy to improve the microeconomic business environment in a particular region or country. (triple helix) – and facilitates personal relationships and mutual trust as fundamental precondition for joint actions addressing the whole knowledge triangle. cluster development needs at least a small operational budget to finance an office with a dedicated cluster facilitator. Sixth. A more subtle implication is the need to manage the interest of different constituencies in the cluster: Companies tend to be more interested in productivity growth and innovation within existing firms rather than new ones. and thus provides a clear value added for all stakeholders. Isolated cluster development has less impact. the lack of a broad consensus about the drivers of economic performance turns out to be the factor most strongly associated with the failure of cluster development. develops and implements adequate and concrete actions. Second. especially for businesses. facilitates sustainable business development .

socio-economic. Examples for the inefficient use of public . Ninth. Eighth. and efficient and effective governance.3. and political environment. and cognitive lock-ins with neglect of external linkage and lack of foresight activities. and combines (often longer-term oriented) co-operation and (more short-term oriented) competition between businesses (co-competition). political. clear communication. Tenth. 2. traditional and strong clusters rely on past success and disregard fundamental changes in the technological. this cluster faced lock-in situations hindering needed adjustments to changing framework conditions and led to a rigid mentality that aimed more at replicating past successes than producing new things. The criteria described the fatal consequences of structural. Cluster development can only be successful and sustainable if it involves and motivates the key regional stakeholders and their respective needs. Seventh. adjusting longer-term business models to emerging lead markets. with reference to the case of the Hollywood film cluster. a common vision and strategy is needed to share by all stakeholders. the way to develop cluster is to facilitate knowledge flows between actors and thus enhances unique learning processes leading to “localized capabilities” within the cluster and facilitates trans-regional knowledge flows and learning processes. to promote an experienced facilitator/promoter with professional and excellent social competences (human factor) is needed for developing cluster by showing high transparency. Second.3 Common Failures of Cluster Development Grabher (1993) and Heidenreich (1998) have discussed the general failures of cluster development as follows: First.29 in line with the cluster strategy. For example. which are chosen by governments as strategic relevant fields for regional development but do not take into account regional capacities and needs. the cluster development needs to integrate a broad rang of public policies and private sector activities and mobilize sustainable support from public and private stakeholders. are doomed to failure in the long-run. policy-driven cluster initiatives.

4 Industrial Cluster Implementation in Thailand The Office of National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB) created a policy for the industrial cluster in enhancing the competitiveness of Thai industry in the 10th National Economic and Social Development Plan. 2. they additionally disregard the value of competition as an important incentive for innovation in clusters. in particular with regard to the aspect of self-financing. cluster initiatives neglect the value of economic market conditions that permanently depend on public subsidies.1 Steps in Developing the Industrial Cluster In order to make policy successful. steps in developing the industrial cluster are required.30 money are the high numbers of struggling ICT and biotechnology cluster initiatives funded by so many governmental programs all over Europe. Third. cluster initiatives with strong reliance on public funds and poor orientation towards future market demands struggle with sustainable cluster development. and this may cause those researchers to miss a significant procedure (DIP. 2. the DIP has been assigned by the NESDB to run the policy. 2007). In order to implement the industrial cluster policy.4. researchers do their work without planning. Thus. Sometimes. If the initiatives try to avoid competition between cluster actors. The DIP has officially implemented the industrial cluster since 2006 and selected industrial groups dispersed throughout the country. 1) To start developing the industrial cluster (1) Information regarding the industrial cluster (2) Research and implementation with stakeholders (3) Create acceptability for the concept of the industrial cluster 2) Stimulate and set up implementation plans for developing the industrial cluster (1) Stimulate the industrial cluster (2) Assess stakeholders’ demand and create implementation plans for developing the industrial cluster .

2 The Role of the Industrial Cluster in Further Development The NESDB (2003) has discussed the role of the industrial cluster in order to ascertain the contributed benefits for stakeholders. 3) Industrial cluster are activities that complement each other. and expert human resources easily. However.31 (3) Confirm to implementation plans for developing the industrial cluster 3) Transform implementation plans to real practice (1) Set up work procedures for developing the industrial cluster (2) Set up industrial cluster projects (3) Confirm the implementation plans for developing the industrial cluster on the policy side (4) Follow-up and evaluation (5) Create the leaders of the industrial cluster (6) Develop a cluster development agent (CDA) 2. and research institutes. the important thing is the linkage between producers. which will help to create efficient innovation and establish new business. each firm can have a bigger chance to expand its business by learning from others. 2) To get into quality. Therefore. 4) Entrepreneurs easily get into the system since the industrial cluster is composed of related firms. 7) To promote the expansion of new businesses since the industrial cluster identifies members’ responsibility follow to expert and experience. and the benefits and advantages received from the industrial cluster will cover all sides and every step of the production process as well as increased value chain. related organizations. 1) To assist finding special components for production and have lower cost for this search compared to other forms. . academic institutes. foundations.4. such as associations. 6) Competition in the industrial cluster causes entrepreneurs to develop efficiency and the produce quality products. expertise. 5) Exist innovation each development since the closeness between entrepreneurs and customers through the production line assists in knowledge about customers’ demands and the trend of customers’ demands. etc.

2) Public Initiative or Top-down Approach The government develops industrial clusters and implements promotion and management by starting out by setting up a meeting for related industries and inputs knowledge and lets them set up objectives and strategies. Cooperating on directions and goals. setting up strategies. it is important that innovations be created and developed. and after that report their status and intentions to the government for further cooperative activities. and knowledge among related parties will increase the efficiency and productivity of the industrial cluster. This kind of industrial cluster has to set up its objectives and strategies for later implementation. Additionally.4. There are four components in making the policy a success. and exchanging information. not only in Bangkok but also throughout the .5 Framework of Industrial Cluster Policy The METI (2005a) has mentioned that in order to enhance the national economy.5.1 Policy Intent In order for Thai industry to survive in increasingly intense international competition and for the local economy to develop autonomously. the rest of the entrepreneurs can adjust to that innovation and this will lead to promoting the development of competitive ability in the economic system on an innovative foundation. resources. METI (2005a) had classified how industrial clusters emerge in two directions: 1) Private Initiative or Bottom-up Approach Main firms within the same or related industries get together for propelling development and creating the same understanding for being a group or an industrial cluster.32 2. 2. the cluster is a good policy. The government is merely a facilitator and monitors them at a distance. as follows: 2. the industrial cluster will help to establish the sharing of new knowledge since when any of the entrepreneurs think of new innovation.3 The Built-in Industrial Cluster The heart of the development of the industrial cluster is cooperation on the competitive background.

33 country. while the Japanese government has started to deal with creating a business environment. industry-industry. and cross-industrial collaborations. but by forming horizontal networks such as industry-academia. and the resulting state in which industry with comparative advantage plays a central part in promoting industrial agglomeration” (METI. and that new industry and new business be created utilizing the industrial resources of each region. For this purpose. This intent of industrial cluster policy can be defined as the desire to form industry-academia-government networks and industry-industry networks throughout our country for the purpose of forming industrial clusters. new business development. and to create new industries and new businesses by promoting regional innovations. Judging from this situation. These efforts to create new industries are being actively developed overseas as industrial cluster formation policy. etc. it is vital to develop a business environment to promote innovations not by the vertical or one-sided relationship often seen in subcontract and trade between affiliate companies. it is appropriate to define an industrial cluster “not as a mere agglomeration of companies. It is important to systematize of a business environment 2. business environments should be developed including industry-government-academia collaboration systems and support systems in launching business. . and management innovation. business collaboration.2 Policy Objective In accordance with the policy intent mentioned above. without interactions but as innovative business environment where new business sharing management assets with each other are created one after another through horizontal networks such as industry-academiagovernment collaboration and collaboration between companies. academia and government.5. 2005b). it is important to set the new objectives of industrial cluster policy and the role of the central government as follows: 1) Development of Business Environment to Promote Innovation In order to promote innovation with the “new fusion” of industry. immediately.

aiming for independence of the local economy by endogenous development. the fostering of human resources and other cluster activities. organizational structure leads to the formation of industry-academiagovernment. the development has begun from certain regions. the region and the central government. A “Network where each face is visible” is the core of an industrial cluster. the launching of business. and educational institutions such as schools—all of this cooperation is necessary. management innovation. the budget for SMEs and the budget for science and technology promotion and other systems are widely and strategically utilized in such business activities as cross-industrial collaboration. 3) Management Structure: Promotion of Collaboration with Related Organizations In financing. and collaboration relationships are promoted with local financial institutions. 3) Synergistic effects with local industry promotion Collaboration with local industry promotion policy is led mainly by the region. Specifically.5.34 2) Creation of New Business in Accordance with National Strategies As an important field for national strategy. and distributive institutions such as major trading firms. market cultivation. market cultivation. which is effective for the creation of new business and new industry. Networking is also promoted by supporting activities at the regional base of organizations and core industry supports organizations that would contribute to cluster formation.3 Policy Schemes Policy schemes are categorized as follows: 1) Organizational structure: Support for Network Formation Providing financial support and contributing to personnel for largescale promotion. and incubation. 2) Management Structure: Support for Business Activities Specific businesses based on industrial cluster formation activities are provided business support. Having new development industries taking root in these regions is also needed. It also contributes to local industry promotion and brings about a greater synergy between . support for R&D. 2.

Overall. etc. 3) The industrial cluster must have deeply and sustainable interaction between firms and related parties for exchanging knowledge and information and for following progress.35 2.. providing a successful cluster for automobiles since they indicated that it was difficult to build a cluster from scratch. including to potential for environmental innovations.6 Key Success Factors According to a study of concepts for cluster-identification with an application to an alleged aeronautics cluster in Northern Germany in 2002 by Alf Erko Lublinski. . and 6) good opportunity for research and development in terms of universities and specialized educations in order to serve and respond to cluster problems. the results showed that the positive impact factors for the alleged aeronautic cluster were R&D cooperation partners of aeronautic firms. the METI (2005a) and DIP (2007) have pointed out their opinions regarding the factors that make the industrial cluster a successful policy. Further. of the industrial cluster. meetings. and inter-firm networks in terms of generating labor market pooling. managing. 5) related organizations and industries were likely to have a positive effect on the innovation potential among cluster members. 2) Industrial clusters have to have main firms be the leader. as follows: 1) Related parties of the industrial cluster must have understanding of strategic directions. 3) the presence of a supply chain and opportunities for cooperation among the various stages of the represented supply chain. 4) The industrial cluster must have a cluster development agent (CDA) or a person that has the duty of facilitating cooperation. 2) policy-initiating established from an already existing and relatively well functioning industry. according to a study on cluster development in Hungary in 2005 by Lis Ravn and Janne Wichard Petersen. suppliers of technologically critical flying material for aeronautic firms. including collaborating for planning and agreeing with strategies in order to create industrial cluster competitiveness. 4) activities to support marketing and capacity building. the findings on the possible success factors in cluster development in Hungary were as follows: 1) promoting innovation.

and specialized institutions are the main axle for developing technology. innovation. research institutions. 6) Every party of the industrial cluster has to express an appropriate role. and academic institutions. and the private sector has the role to propel the industrial cluster to achieve its objectives. the government sector is on duty to support policies and infrastructure in order to create a competitive atmosphere for the private sector.36 5) The industrial cluster must have a proper consultant. for example.   . and knowledge for cluster members.

(Nagel 1984: 3). Their work defines policy implementation as . etc. 2) policy success or failure.1.1 Review of Literature of the Major Factors Affecting Implementation of Policy The study focuses on public policy implementation related to the success of industrial cluster implementation in Thailand and the assessment of the factors that make policy successful. A review of the literature serves the purpose of studying definitions and creating conceptual frameworks in order to select clear dependent and independent variables. This chapter is divided into 4 main sections: 1) review of the literature on the major factors affecting implementation of policy. as well as to study the causal relationships of the scope of certain elements. There are various definitions of policy implementation. such as the scope of the research. and framework. conceptual framework theories. and 4) variables and measurement of variables. as well as related research about policy implementation. The term public policy refers to the way in which the governmental approaches the goal of resolving or dealing with numerous concerned areas such economic. social. and definitions of related research. environment. 3) the conceptual model of the study. population. with correspondence to the study. 3.37 CHAPTER 3 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND PROPOSED MODEL OF STUDY The literature review in this chapter is related to implementation theories and concepts from famous scholars.1 Definition of Policy Implementation Among the important work on policy implementation is that of Pressman and Wildavsky's implementation (1973: 8). 3.

and 4) simplicity in policies is much to be desired. policy resources. the clear understanding of applying policy to implementation should be studied from the point of view of conceptual framework. their work did not include a theoretical model of implementation. international communication and enforcement activities. As both scholars mentioned.38 a process of interaction between the setting of goals and actions in order to make sure of the success of policy implementation. and other beneficial factors. importance of the study. Van Meter and Van Horn (1975: 200-217) also mentioned that the policy implementation process raises serious boundary problems. characteristics of implementing agencies. These matters were important starters for the following research. Moreover. Although. it was a starting point for the field of implementation studies. In their analysis. social. there are six clusters of variables. In their work. and political conditions. 2) designers of policy must consider direct means for achieving their end. Moreover. policy standards and objectives. economic. 3) continuity of leadership is important to successful policy implementation. Notice that Van Meter and Van Horn have given importance to policy implementers. They pictured implementation as a unidirectional process mandated by prior policy decisions.” Van Meter and Van Horn (1975) have defined policy implementation as actions by public or private individuals (or groups) that are directed at the achievement of objectives set forth in prior decision making. as their roles are crucial in shaping the policy process. The researcher should provide examples regarding implementing policy and giving definition of implementing policy from different perspectives. Furthermore. there were many important observations on implementation such as: 1) implementation should not be divorced from policy and must not be conceived as a process that takes place after the design of policy. a . namely. many of the variables needed to complete an implementation study are difficult to measure. it is difficult to define the relevant j actors. meaning. and the disposition of implementers. That is. Williams (1971: 144) concluded that “implementation seeks to determine whether an organization can bring together men and material in a cohesive organizational unit and motivate them in such a way as to carry out the organization’s stated objectives.

thus involving an enormous outlay of time and resources. uses the machine analogy to characterize the administration process. His model.. Thus.39 comprehensive analysis of implementations requires that attention be given to multiple actions over an extended period of time. in his book The Implementation Game. Bardach's model therefore looked at players or stakes of the policy. Bardach conceived policy implementation as a series of game involving the efforts of numerous semiautonomous actors to protect their interests and gain access to program element not under their control—all within the face of considerable uncertainty and the context of general expectations that something will be attempted consistent with the legal mandate. Pressman and Wildavsky (1973: 8) explained that policy implementation is a process of interaction between the setting of goals and actions. and maneuvering under conditions of uncertainty. the degree to which policy goals are actually achieved through specific decisions can provide an estimate of the implementation actually achieved. Moreover. Browne and Wildavsky (1984) viewed implementation as a process of mutual adaptation in which policies and programs adapt to their environment and each alter the other. persuasion. they stated that policy implementation encompasses those actions by public and private individuals (or groups) that affect the achievement of objectives set forth in prior policy decisions. like the classical ones. despite the often wide range of participants and their generally quite different perspectives. those who attempt to put the implementation machine together try to exercise control through bargaining.[which involves].putting the machine together and making it run. Bardach also viewed that policy implementation is part of the business of the political process. In his analysis.... Schneider (1982) mentioned that policy implementation is normally viewed as a stage after policy formulation and before the reutilization of operations. They found that proper implementation requires government officials to translate broad agreements into specific decisions. activities and tasks that are governed by the policy. Bardach (1977). . has defined implementation as the assembly process. In the Implementation Game (1977).

and stifle policy intent as keys to implementation. specific instructions for implementing the policy were given by the policy maker and the implementers had a duty to carry out such instructions according to policy guidelines (Nakamura and Smallwood. therefore. stifles policy intent. 1980). Pressman and Wildavsky (1984) on directness and simplicity were identified implementation as keys of a multiplicity of decision points. those that attempted to put the implementation machine together tried to exercise control through bargaining. A multiplicity of decision points. used game as a metaphor for the policy process. introducing overwhelming complexity of joint action. a classical model of public administration based on the principle of scientific public management became widespread in the US. policy implementation. This classical model excluded implementers from the process.2 Criticism of Policy Implementation Recently. In the classical view. In the past. He. policy implementation has been viewed as one of the most important steps in policy success. and maneuvering under conditions of uncertainty. was viewed as just an act of delivering a formulated policy. However. Moreover. introducing overwhelming complexity of joint action. The top-down command structure during this period minimized the role of implementers. there was an assumption that once a policy has been made the policy will be implemented and the results of the policy will be near those expected by policymakers. as Smith (1973) argued.40 3. . implementation was viewed as the stage after the policy decision. it was not until the 1970s that policy implementation gained momentum from a number of publications in this field. In this classical model. as of the classical viewpoints. However. persuasion.1. 1980). In his analysis. as they were oversimplified and unrealistic. many of these classical model assumptions have been criticized. and the decision was made at the top and the agent that carried out the policy was chosen by the policy maker. During the 1930s. an agent to carry out the policy was chosen by the policy maker according to technical criteria and the agent then implemented specific instructions according to the policy guidelines specified in the communication from the policy maker (Nakamura and Smallwood.

41 Van Meter and Van Horn (1975) concentrated on interorganizational communications and enforcement activities related to policy. Van Horn (1979) mentioned that the fundamental autonomy that state and local governments enjoy in the federal system is the principal explanation for the minimal impact of public laws and federal implementation agencies. Furthermore, the characteristics of implementing agencies, predisposition of implementers, and resources were identified as critical. Van Meter and Van Horn also argued that the implementation process depends on the nature or type of policy. The authors classified policy using two characteristics: the amount of charge involved, and the extent to which there is goal consensus among the participants in the implementation process. A positive response will come from the policy that requires little or incremental change from previous policy and requires only a few changes in organization. In their analysis, there are six clusters of variables; namely, policy standards and objectives, policy resources, international communication and enforcement activities, characteristics of implementing agencies, economic, social and political conditions, the disposition of implementers. Van Meter and Van Horn have given importance to the policy implementers, as their roles are crucial in shaping the policy process. The details are as follows: 1) Policy Standards and Objectives Policy implementation requires that goals and objectives be identified and measured. These measured indicators will be assessed if the policy standard and objectives are realized. 2) Policy Resources Resources are necessary for running programs. These resources include funds or other incentives in the programs that might encourage or facilitate effective implementation. 3) Inter-organizational Communication and Enforcement Activities As mention earlier, this framework focused on the interrelation between the agencies involved implementation the policy, and the requirement of the effective policy implementation regarding program standards and objectives have to be understood by individual responsibility for their achievement. The standards and objectives must be accurately communicated to the implementers. Moreover, power or control over all agencies is important for policy implementation.

42 4) Characteristics of the Implementing Agencies Van Meter and Van Horn studied both the components of agencies, the formal structural features of the organization, and the informal attributes of their personnel. Characteristics that may impinge on the organization’s capacity to implement policy are, for example, competence and size of staff, degree of hierarchical control of sub-unit decisions, and agency's political support. 5) Economic, Social, and Political Conditions Conditions such as limitations in resources, changes in social/economic conditions that affect the severity of problems, changes in government, and changes in the opinion of politicians and interest groups can affect implementation. 6) The Disposition of Implementers As argued by the authors, three elements of implementers response may affect their willingness to carry out policy (and cause policy failure): 1) their cognition (understanding) of policy directions, 2) their acceptance of the policy, and 3) the intensity of that response. McLaughin (1975) identified the implementers closest to the action and their immediate environment as crucial. Her model focused on the interpersonal relationship between implementers and policy formulators as a key factor in policy success. Her model interests in implementers receptivity or lack of receptivity when policy changes. She concluded that the amount of interest, commitment, and support evidenced by principal actors has a major influence on the prospects for success. Libsky (1980) has identified front-line implementers or street-level bureaucracy as the important determinants of policy implementation. Both the compliance and ability of the street-level bureaucracy were emphasized in this model. Sorg (1983) classified the important behaviors of implementers that have effects on the success or failure of policy. Sorg's classification of two dimensions, compliance and intention, have been used as criteria to determine types of implementers. These two dimensions created four types of implementers; namely, intentional compliance, unintentional non-compliance, unintentional compliance, and intentional noncompliance. By integrating the work of Hall and Loucks on levels of the use of an innovation, they use conformity criteria in their model. As the model, the implementers can be classified also as those that implement the policy but do not conform to it and to those who do not implement the policy and conform to it.

43 One of the most comprehensive works on the determinations of policy success is from Mazmanian and Sabatier (1983). In their study, implementation is also viewed an act of carrying out basic policy decision, usually made in a statute. They mentioned that the policy decision identifies the problem to be addressed, stipulates the objectives to be pursued, and structures the implementation process. Moreover, in the case of a statue regulating private economy behavior, the implementation process normally runs through a number of stages, beginning with the passage of the basic statute, followed by the policy outputs of the implementing agencies, the compliance of the target group with those decisions, the actual impacts of those outputs, the perceived impacts of agency decisions, and important revisions in the basic statute. Mazmanian and Sabatier (1983) have identified seventeen independent variables summarized under three headings: tractability of problem, the ability of statute to structure implementation, and non-statutory variables. Their seventeen independent variables can be classified in to three groups: The first group of variables is tractability of the problem. This group concerns the aspect of problems that affect the ability of government institutions to achieve the statutory goal. The four variables in this group are as follows: 7) Availability of Valid Technical Theory and Technology The policy program assumes the modification of the target group because the policy will ameliorate the problem. If there is a valid theory connecting the behavioral change to problem amelioration, there will be more chance of the policy being successful. 8) Diversity of Target Group Behavior or Diversity of Behavior Being Regulated Since the policy is viewed as a change in target group behavior, the more diversity of behavior, the less probable of policy for success. 9) Target Group as a Percentage of Population The reason here is same as for the above variable; thus, the smaller and more definable the target group whose behavior needs to be changed, the more likely the mobilization of political support is and thus more probability of the achievement of statutory objectives.

44 10) Extent of Behavioral Change Required In this variable, the more change required the more problems of implementation exist. The second group of variables is the ability of the statute to structure implementation; those variables are as follows: 11) Validity of Causal Theory Underlying Statue Two aspects are considered here. First is technical validity, which refers to the relationship between target group behavior and the attainment of the statutory objective. Second is implementation effectiveness, which refers to an ability of implementing agencies to create a behavioral change in the target group. 12) Unambiguous Policy Directives Policy should also contain unambiguous directives and provide for a structured implementation process in order to maximize the likelihood that target groups will perform as desired. Policy objectives should be precisely defined and clearly prioritized. 13) Financial Resources Money is necessary for both hiring staff and conducting the technical analyses involved in the development of regulations, administration of permit programs, and monitoring compliance. 14) Hierarchical Integration with and Among Implementing Institutions Coordination among the semi-autonomous agencies involved in the implementation is also crucial for success. This means that the veto points should be minimal and sanction/inducements should be provided to overcome resistance. 15) Decision-Rules of Implementing Agencies According to Mazmanian and Sabatier’s notion of policy, “it will be success in changing target group behavior if the decision rule of implementing is bias toward the achievement of statutory objectives” and moreover, “a statute can be assigned authority to make final decision, within implementing institutions to those officials who likely to support statutory objectives.”

and politicians as well as the public may lost their interest in the policy as well. and as a result. 22) Support from sovereigns The sovereigns of the implementing agency are those institutions that control its legal and financial resources. One difficulty in implementing inter- . as it influences politicians and implementing agencies. When this happens. the program will fail. Changes in socio-economic conditions and technology can affect political support of programs and at the same time the support of the general public. The third group is comprised of the non-statutory variables affecting implementation.45 16) Recruitment of Implementing Officials The policy will be more likely to succeed if the implementer not only complies with but also commits to the policy goal. selecting the implementation is one of the crucial keys of success. 21) Attitudes and Resources of Constituency Groups There is a trend for the support of a program to decline over time as the concerned problem. By doing so. the importance of implementing policy may be reduced and so also public and politicians support. and sovereigns. Thus. resources may be reallocated to other projects at the moment that seem more important. 17) Formal Access by Outsiders Not only do we need implementing agencies and implementers who bias statutory objectives. When the mass media lost it interest in the issue. 20) Public Support Public support of the policy is one of the crucial elements for policy success. 18) Socio-Economic Conditions and Technology Socio-economic conditions and technology can affect political support and therefore affect policy implementation output. interest groups. we need outsiders or policy beneficiaries to do the same thing. we need participation of these group of people. Scare resources may be re-allocated elsewhere. When an environment changes. 19) Media Attention to the Problems The change in socio-economic conditions may also change the perception of the mass media.

Implementers also must commit themselves to the success of policy. 3) applications of the frameworks (1980-1985). as Bowman mentioned earlier. Moreover. and 4) syntheses and revisions (1985-1987). 1) Case Studies (1970-1975)   Standards and  Objectives Interorganizational  Communication and  Enforcement Activities        Policy  Characteristics of the  Implementing Agencies  The Deposition  of Implementers  Performance  Resources Economic.1.1 Van Meter and Van Horn’s Model: A Model of Inter-Governmental Policy Implementation . leadership skill is important in implementing policy.3 Models of Policy Implementation Lester J. namely: 1) case studies (19701975). 2) policy implementation frameworks (1975-1980). and  Political Condition  Figure 3. (1987) have studied development of implementation research and have classified it into four generations. Bowman et al.46 government policy is that the implementing agencies are responsible to different sovereigns who pursue different goals. the model of policy implementation can classify into four generations following. Implementers must have a clear understanding of implementation goals (including directions and the ranking of objectives in official preference) and the ability to realize those preferences. 23) Commitment and Leadership Skill of Implementing Officials This is one of the important keys for success in implementation—the ability of implementers. Therefore. Social. 3.

the ability of legislation to structure implementation. 2) Policy Implementation Frameworks (1975-1980) Berman et al. 2) resources and inter-organizational communications. and the analysis of inter-governmental relations. which was called A Model of Inter-government Policy Implementation. The tractability of the problem. 3) enforcement activities.2 below. the model was mainly a “top-down” one. Berman also stated that participation of stakeholders is an important factor in the implementation of policy. implementation methods. and awareness and experience of the target group. the evolution of organizational complexity. the success of policy implementation of any program could be measured by quantifying the degree of “goal fulfillment” and the project attained—either by using the prevailing methodology or by estimating the continuity. Van Meter and Van Horn (1975: 200-217) indicated the results from a consideration of the various incremental developments involved in the implementation process. the impact of judicial decision. and political conditions. They also developed a model of the policy implementation process. and the non-statutory variables affecting implementation were synthesized into the following dependent variables: 1) policy . The policy factors which they identified are as follows: 1) policy goals and standards. Athwell and Gerstein (1979) studied how the Methodone approach operated in monopsonic situations and concluded that technical invalidity and theory failure often led to policy implementation failure. (1977) examined the factors which he considered to be the most successful in policy implementation. The details of this model were shown in figure 3. Their research produced a new theory of policy implementation. Sabatier and Mazmanian (1980) established a framework for another general model by identifying successful policy implementation as a dependent variable. 5) prevailing economic. The model is shown in figure 3. the effect of major reorganizations. and 6) the disposition of the implementing parties. social. such as organizational changes. Another “top-down” models were developed by Sabatier and Mazmanian by using the variables mentioned in the previous section of this paper.47 In the first generation. the development of organizational controls. As per the model.1 above. 4) characteristics of implementing agencies. As seen. The first “top-down” model was proposed with the Van Meter and Van Horn model in 1975.

The model is shown in figure 3. 3) dispositions of implementers. 4. Availability of Valid technical theory and Technology  Diversity of target‐group behavior  Target group as a percentage of population  Extent of Behavioral change requires  Ability of Statute to Structure Implementation 1. 4) perceived impacts of policy outputs. Clear and consistent objectives  Incorporation of adequate causal theory  Financial Resources  Hierarchical integration with and among  implementing institutions   5. 3. 5. and 5) major revision of the statue. 6.2 Sabatier and Mazmanian’s Model Another top-down model was developed by C. 3. 4. Formal access by outsiders  Non‐statutory Variables Affecting Implementation  1. Edward in 1980. Recruitment of implementing official  7.48 outputs of implementing agencies.3 below. 2.   Tractability of Problem 1. 2. . where the model identified four factors believed to affect policy implementation: 1) communication. and 4) bureaucratic structure. 4. 2) compliance with policy outputs by target groups. 3. 3) actual impacts of policy outputs. 2) resources. Decision‐rules of implementing agencies  6. Socioeconomic conditions and technology  Media attention to the problem  Public support  Attitudes and resources of constituency groups  Support from sovereigns  Commitment and leadership skill of implementing  officials  Stages (Dependent Variables) in the Implantations Process  Policy outputs of  implementing  agencies  Compliance with  policy outputs  by target groups  Actual impacts of  policy outputs  Perceived  impacts of policy  outputs  Major  revision in  statue  Figure 3. 2.

and the amount and type of resources available for carrying out policy. the characteristics of implementing agencies. . and 3) the availability of resources and political planning assistance is a major determinant. They identified four factors which affect the implementation of decentralization policies: (1) Environmental Condition Cheema and Rondinelli state that policies emerging from a specific and complex socioeconomic and political environment would shape the substance of policies. Cheema and Rondinelli (1983). 2) a multiplicity of actors will bring about different perspectives and ideology. regarding the establishing of the conceptual framework on an improvement of decentralization program in the implementation process.3 Edwards’s Model 3) Applications of the Frameworks (1980-1985) Hambleton (1983) observed the effectiveness of policy implementation according to the following methods: 1) the policy message needs to be clear and consistent. the pattern of the inter-organizational relationships involved. In Rural Development in Asia.49 Communication Resources Implementation Disposition Bureaucratic Structure   Figure 3.

the inter-organizational relationships and linkages to policy implementation depend on the clarity and consistency of policy objectives. regional. the synthesis and revision of the top-down and bottom-up approach was integrated by several scholars. and technical support provided will be a key effect on the success or failure of policies and programs. Bowman et al. 7) the commitment to policy objectives. (3) Resources for Policy and Program Implementation The degree of financial. 4) Syntheses and Revisions (1985-1987) In the last generation of implementation. the complementary actions by local. and 8) the location of the agency within the bureaucratic hierarchy. 2) the capacity of agencies to coordinate.50 (2) Inter-Organizational Relationships and Linkages The interaction and coordination of a large number of organizations at different levels of government. 4) an examination of the participant to understand the implementing authority on the policy. (4) Characteristics of implementing agencies The determinants of the success of policy implementation are comprised of the following factors: 1) the technical. managerial and political skills of agency staff. such as Coggin (1986). 4) the nature and quality of internal communications. timely availability of resources. agencies’ relationships with their clients and supporters. as suggested by Bowman. administrative. and national agencies. . and the cooperation of non-government organization and other groups of interest beneficiaries are required for the success of policy implementation. Gunn and Hogwood (1984) have proposed four approaches to the study of policy implementation: 1) a procedural and managerial approach with an emphasis on control factors. to control. The adequacy of budgetary allocations. as well as from other organizations and client group. Wittrock and De Leon (1986). 3) the degree of political support from members of the national political leadership and the bureaucracy. 2) an examination of organizational structures. and to integrate the decisions of subunits. 5) the effectiveness of linkages to both private and voluntary organization. 6) the leadership style. and the level of revenue and expenditure authority exercised at the local level will all significantly influence implementation. 3) behavioral studies in relation to participants. However.

proper job assignments to related . Basic attributes of the problem areas  (good)  2. 2) the Management Model.  Changes in systematic governing         coalition  3.e. 3) the Organization Development Model. The rational model emphasizes efficiency in planning and control.51 (1987). Basic constitutional structure (rules)       Constrains  and  Resources  of  Subsystem  Actions  Policy Subsystem  Coalition A     Coalition B  a) Belief System      Policy        a) Belief System  b) Resources           Brokers     b) Resources    Strategy A Strategy B  Events External to Subsystem  1. (1) In the “Rational Model. Fundamental socio‐cultural values and  social structure  4. and many others. a whole variety of public and private actors involved with policy problems) with the “top-downers” concerns over the manner in which socioeconomic conditions and legal instruments constitutes behavior. and 6) the General Model.4 below shows the Sabatier integrated model.” the organization operates as “rational value maximizes” in order to achieve the target or goal.  Policy decisions and impacts from         other systems                  Government  Internal Feedback Loop  Internal Feedback Loop  Action Program (collective  Choice Level)  Policy Outputs   (Operational Level)    Policy Impact  Figure 3. One ambitious model was developed by Sabatier in 1986. 5) the Political Model. Basic distribution of natural resources  3.” Figure 3. Van Horn (1987). 4) the Bureaucratic Processes Model. In this model Sabatier combined “bottom-up” unit of analysis (i. Relatively Stable System  Parameters  1.4 Sabatier’s Model Voradej Chandarasorn (1993) has identified six policy implementation models: 1) the Rational Model. The assumption of this model is that a successful program needs clear targets/objectives.  Changes in socio‐economic conditions          and technology  2.

work standard settings.52 sub-divisions. The variables for this model are shown in figure 3. As proper implementation requires the organization to be capable in terms of both administrative and technical know-how. evaluation systems and reward. The assumption is that successful implementation depends on the implementing agency’s capability to perform according to the expected target. the organization must have a suitable implementation plan and sufficient resources to accomplish the program.   Objective of  Policy      Planning  and Control  Mission setting  and Job  Assignment Work Standard Performance of  Policy  Implementation  Evaluation  System  Reward and  Punishment  System Figure 3. and a punishment system.6 below.5 Rational Model (2) The Management Model focuses on organizational performance. .

this is strongly related to efficiency in the running of the organization. Therefore.53 Structure Personnel Organization’s Performance Policy Implementation Performance Budget Place/Location Tool and Equipment Figure 3. proper leadership.   Leadership Participation Motivation Policy  Implementation  Performance  Teamwork  Relationship and acceptance  among member Figure 3. under the assumption that participation will create effective teamwork. relationships and acceptance among members. on the other hand. focuses on the participation of implementing agencies. The organization development model requires psychology and sociology to improve the relationship and cooperation of the teamwork.6 Management Model (3) The Organizational Development model.7 Organizational Development Model . successful implementation is the result of motivation. and participation and teamwork within the implementing agencies.

In conclusion. Therefore. This model assumes that performance of implementation depends on the ability of the players and the relationship of the players to external factors. combined with an adequate level of policy acceptance by those persons actually responsible for carrying out policy. and staff at lower levels. Understanding Level  of policy  maker/project  manage to real nature  Policy  Implementation  Performance  Acceptance Level to  adopt policy into a  daily job  Figure 3. all members of the agency (including Libsky’s Street-level bureaucrats) have the power to use their own judgment in delivering the program to policy customers. and Sabatier and Mazmanian (1980). but also the result of the attitudes and actions of policy makers. failure of policy implementation is not solely the result of inefficient administration. Consensus and participation are difficult to achieve while conflict is common. conflict management. person to organization. Implementation is therefore a matter of confrontation (between organizations). but power is distributed throughout the organization. support seeking. successful implementation depends on the attitude of policy makers as well as the ability of implementers to provide proper services. Bardach (1977). and negotiation from person to person. it is believed that the power of the organization is not at the “formal position” or the head of the organization alone. administrators.54 (4) In the Bureaucratic Processes Model. and organization to organization.8 Bureaucratic Process Model (5) Voradej Chandarasorn has developed the Political Model from the work of Pressman and Wildavsky (1979). advertisements/campaigns. Thus. .

the large number of variables tends to make the production of quantitative research difficult and the validity of some variables can be difficult to ascertain.Stakeholders . and the level of support demonstrated by implementers.Important Person   Figure 3. the General Model. organization’s ability to implement policy.Politician . The general model focuses on three main factors: communication procedures.Influence Group . The framework of the general model adopts many of the variables used in other models in order to further understand the policy implementation process. However.Other Organization .9 Political Model (6) The last model.Media . was developed from the work of Van Meter and Van Horn (1975). Power and Agency’s resource Support from .55 Number of Involving agencies Personality Policy Implementation Performance Knowledge Negotiation Ability Status. .

and given that ambiguity of fully measuring the range of impacts attributable to any particular policy intervention few polices could be characterized as completed success or failure.” Although.56 Communication  Procedures  Mode and  Policy  Objective  Enforcement  Activity  Policy  Implementation  Performance Support from  Implementers  Characteristics of  Implementing  Organizations Resources  Socio‐economic  Condition  Political Condition Figure 3.2 Policy Success or Failure Danziger Dutton and Kraemer (1980).10 General Model 3. and Kraemer have suggested that the outcomes of the policy are . in their study of automated information in the policy process. mentioned that “given the seamless web of continuous adjustment in both goals and activities in policy process. Dutton. Danziger.

Kerr stated that the policy that cannot be implemented cannot be a successful one. organization dynamics. namely. instrumental failure. (1977) examined the factors which he considered most after the success of policy implementation. either by using the prevailing methodology or by gauging the continuity. namely. Patton (1979) has distinguished the differences between outcome evaluation and implementation evaluation. it can fail if it is not normatively justified. it can be implied that the outcome of policy was used as a measurement of success in the policy process. He also classified three types of implementation evaluation. normative justification. he expressed the opinion that participation by stakeholders is an important factor in implementation of policy. 2) instrumental failure. He called this type of evaluation the “Black Box” approach. the implementation evaluation was aimed at gathering “implementation information” in order to make sure that policy is being put into operation according to the design to test the feasibility of policy. and 3) failure in normative Justification. observing that the success of any such program could be measured by quantifying the degree of “goal fulfillment” or “the project attained. The second type. is the policy that does not fulfill its purpose or purposes. Kerr (1976) identified three types of policy failures. Berman et al. In the first type. although the policy can be successfully implemented and effective as an instrument for achieving the agent’s policy. On the other hand. According to Patton’s study. Patton argued that successful implementation is characterized as a process of the adaptation of all idea to local conditions. However. implementation methods. In his study. or awareness and experience of the target group. implementation is to unlock the black box. In the last type of failure. the study focuses on successful implementation and many scholars have provided ideas for classifying how to claim that the policy is successful. . and programmatic uncertainties. He suggested that “outcome evaluation is the comparison of actual program outcomes with desired outcomes (goals)” and this type of evaluation gives decision-makers very little information on which to act. 1) implementation failure. In his study.57 difficult to measure compared to the stated goals.

if the program is relative inactive.” Effectiveness criteria can be measured by two methods: (1) The goal-attainment approach is a method of measuring the outcome at the end of project implementation. Using effectiveness criteria can be carried out by making a comparison between “actual results” and planned results. successful implementation can be extended by fulfilling two criteria. effectiveness and efficiency. . In the study. and project. effectiveness refers to the evaluation of pursuing the industrial cluster project or goal attainment approach. i.58 1) Effort evaluation focuses on documenting the quantity and quality of program activities. In the study. 3) The treatment specific approach involves identifying and measuring precisely what it is about a program that is supposed to have an effect. measure. in technical terms. this is derived from DIP’s term of reference (TOR). this approach takes its name from looking how a product or outcome is produced. as discussed below. it is unlikely to be very effective. 1) Effectiveness Van Meter and Van Horn (1975) claimed that effectiveness implementation requires that program standards and objectives be understood by those individuals responsible for the achievement of policy. 2) Process evaluation focuses on the internal dynamics of a program in attempt to understand its strength and weakness. planning. not measuring between each step of implementation. it is an analysis of the processes whereby a program produces the results it does. According to above scholar’s opinions. as illustrated in the diagram below. this means identifying independent variables that are expected to affect outcomes (the dependent variables).e. effectiveness will be defined as the ability to achieve the objective of policy.

Attainment Approach . and related government organizations in order to be ready support each other and to be an instrument to create a competitive system for continuous and sustainable industry growth Coverage of the structure of industrial cluster Cluster members participate in implementing activities Activities that cluster members implement for promoting the development of the industrial cluster Income generation 59 Effectiveness of Industrial Cluster Project (Goal – Attainment Approach) To promote and stimulate domestic economics. including income distribution. expertise. and building up revenue in both the government and private sector in the long-run Reduction of cost To create knowledge. academic institutes. in the shortrun. vision stimulation. financial institutes.11 Effectiveness of Industrial Cluster Project on Goal . reduction of wasting foreign currency. employment. and potential development for SME entrepreneur competition Perceive and understand the increment of cluster members Perceive and understand the increment of cluster members Figure 3. 59 To help entrepreneurs realize and agree with the importance of the industrial c cluster among Thai entrepreneurs or Thai and foreign entrepreneurs   Realize and agree on the importance of the industrial cluster Clarity of industrial cluster To promote the chain of the industrial cluster in the production and service sector composed of domestic enterprises.

. effectiveness is the evaluation of the benefit of the industrial cluster or system approach. 1991). In the study.60 (2) The systems approach is the consideration of a project as to whether the outcome coverage is from the beginning to the end (Santiwong.

12 Effectiveness of Industrial Cluster Project on System Approach .61 To receive extra benefit for being industrial cluster  To get in to quality human resource cluster  To promote business of each others   Effectiveness on the benefit for being Industrial Cluster  (System Approach)  To get in to related information   To develop innovative ability  To be competitors within industrial cluster  To expand new business   Proportion that enterprises cooperate to do raw material procurement Proportion that enterprises cooperate to recruit skill labors Proportion that enterprises cooperate for sharing purchasing order Proportion that enterprises consult each others Proportion that enterprises distribute information Proportion that enterprises cooperate in developing technology Proportion that enterprises cooperate in developing competitive potential Proportion that enterprises cooperate in producing new products 61 Figure 3.

it indicates that benefit from investment is equal or greater than cost. . In the study.…) = Duration of project  Figure 3.2. B/C = = Note: B/C = Benefit-Cost Ratio PVB = Present value of benefit PVC = Present value of cost = Benefit at year t Ct = Cost at year t r t n = Discounted Rate = Year (from 0.e. efficiency is the ability to obtain maximum output under given cost or given output with minimum cost. Measuring efficiency can be accomplished by considering whether the output of actual implementation and the budget have been used. If the B/C Ratio is equal to or greater than 1. that project is the most efficient. This is the ratio of the benefits of a project.13 B/C Ratio Source: Zerbe and Dively. i. 1994. All benefits and costs should be expressed in discounted present values. also expressed in monetary terms. relative to their costs. efficiency criteria are measured by the benefit-cost ratio (B/C ratio).62 2) Efficiency In terms of it meaning in economics.1.  3) Relationship between effectiveness and efficiency Schermerhorn (1989) explains the relationship between effectiveness and efficiency for management administration according to the following: (1) If a project has effectiveness and lacks efficiency it means that project utilizes resources without efficiency. expressed in monetary terms. so that the project results in the highest outcome compared to the budget.

on the other hand. 5) coordination among implementing agencies. (3) If a project has both effectiveness and efficiency it means that the project has achieved the objective and uses resources efficiently.” there are four variables that indirectly affect implementation effectiveness: 1) industrial sector environmental awareness. were included in this study. Yinyon Senitwong Na Ayudhya (2001) has studied the “major factor influencing the health city policy implementation.” An objective of this research was to discover the factors influencing the effectiveness of implementation of vended food sanitation improvement policy. 4) implementing agency incentives. through variable “willingness to comply. and 4) external factors. The satisfaction of customers. 3) environmental conservation expenses for the industrial sector. Two dependent variables. Kast and Rosenzweig (1970) stated that measuring the success of a project relates to the measurement of both effectiveness and efficiency. Also. There are six variables indirectly affecting implementation effectiveness regarding the “implementing agency capacity” variable. and 6) external support. the increase in the number of complying venders and customers satisfied with the food.3 Previous Study on Policy Implementation In the “Major Factors Affecting Industrial Hazardous Waste Policy Implementation in Central Thailand. 2) environmental conservation incentives for the industrial sector. 2) vender incentive for compliance. 1) vender understanding. 3. which in turn was affected by three factors: 1) leader commitment and continuity and 2) implementing agency’s capacity and media support. These six variables are: 1) government policy commitment and continuity. The satisfaction variables have five variables namely.” Thawilwade Bureekul (1998) suggested that policy implementation effectiveness is determined by two directed variables. The findings indicated that the number complying as affected by effective enforcement. 3) policy resources. 3) vender perception of . 2) policy standards and objectives. implementing agency capacity and willingness to comply. was affected by the degree of vender compliance with the code of practice.63 (2) If a project lacks both effectiveness and efficiency it means that the project has not fulfilled its objective and uses resources without efficiency. namely.

there were four factors that affected election policy implementation. 5) learning organization characteristics. 2) PSO perception (perception of officials of PSO attributes). Benjasiri used the variable satisfaction of implementation result to measure PSO implementation.” In her study. she specified that there were differences in the major factors affecting election policy implementation of two groups: the Provincial Election Commission (PEC) and the Constituency Election Commission (CEC). and 4) PEC compliance ability. which were: 1) CEC perception of the commitment of the Election Commission of Thailand to policy commitment. For the PEC group. . 2) CEC understanding and acceptance of the policy context. 4) vender perception of official enforcement. Rumjuan Benjasiri (2002) conducted a study called “The Implementation of Public Sector Standard Management System and Outcomes (PSO): A case study of the Community Development Department. 3) PEC willingness to comply with the policy. 2) the cooperation between PEC and other related implementing agencies. 4) the cooperation between the CEC and other related implementing agencies.64 compliance cost. The research found that there were seven factors that contributed to PSO implementation: 1) executive support. 3) PSO itself (clear instructions and clear PSO standards). On the implementation side. These were: 1) the adequacy of needed resources that the PEC perceived. For the CEC group there were six factors. In 2003.” The objective of the study was to find the outcomes that the Community Development Department had achieved from the intervention of the Public Sector Standard Management System and Outcomes implementation and to identify the major factors that contributed to the implementation and their effect. Homchuenchom conducted a study called “Election Policy in Thailand: Major Factor Affecting the Effectiveness of Policy Implementation. and 7) level of regulation in work. 6) innovation performance experience (involvement of officials in programs/projects related to innovation or new ideas in the past). and 5) perception of how unofficial sanction indirectly affected the customer satisfaction variable. and 6) CEC’s policy compliance ability. 5) CEC’s willingness to comply with the policy. 3) the adequacy of needed resources that the CEC perceives. 4) participative management strategies (level of participation of implementers).

65 3. implementation stage variables. An integrated model or a conceptual model was developed from the important variables relevant to the circumstances of policy implementation with regard to industrial cluster in Central Thailand. in the present study. This model will be tested using both qualitative and quantitative methods. it can be seen that not all the models from mentioned scholars are applicable to the present study due to different situations and environments. and evaluation stage variables. are composed of the variables of three levels. the implementer level. However. Van Meter and Van Horn. and many others. the emphasis is on the implementation stage variable. McLauglin. The implementation stage variables. there are three stages of variables: formulation stage variables. the study will focus on the policy customer level of analysis or the enterprise level of analysis. As indicated in previous studies. the organization level. . a new integrated model was developed and considered for suitability for this study. and policy customers. while the variables in the other stages may indirectly affect policy success through the implementation variable.4 Conceptual Model of the Study By looking at previous studies by scholars in the field of policy implementation such as those by Mazmanian. Nevertheless. Sabatier. However. as the researcher believes that the variables in this group directly affect the success or failure of policy.

6) clarity of goals.6 The greater the clarity of goals.2 The more communication there is.6 H 3.2 H 1. 1. and 7) the ability of cluster members and policy implementers.1 Participation of Stakeholders Management Ability Perceived Support H 3.5 Quality of Project H 1.1 H 2. 3) management ability. the more successful the implementation will be.3 H 1. 2) communication.3 Greater management ability is positively related to successful implementation. 4) perceived support. 1. 1.Efficiency . 5) quality of project.4 Successful 1. 1.1 H 1.Benefit Cost Ratio (B/C)   Clarity of Goals H 3.1 The greater the participation of stakeholders.66 H 1.Effectiveness .5 The quality of project has a positive relationship with successful implementation.5 Research Hypotheses Hypothesis I The major factors that determine the failure or successes of industrial cluster implementation are: 1) the participation of stakeholders. 1. 1.3 H 1.14 The Purposed Model for Analysis 3.7 Ability of Cluster Members and Policy Implementers Figure 3.4 More perceived support leads to more chances of the policy being successful. the greater the chances of policy to be a success. . the more chances there are of the policy to be a success.2   Communication H 1.Industrial Cluster Project (GoalAttainment Approach and System Approach) 2.

2 The level of clarity of goals is positively related to the level of quality of the program. Stakeholders range from implementers to consultants and the industrial cluster itself. and 3) the level of ability of cluster members and policy implementers (to translate policy into action plans or programs.6.1 Dependent Variables The dependent variable is "successful implementation. Hypothesis 3 The major factors that determine the quality of a program are: 1) level of perceived support. The operational . 3. 3.3 The ability of cluster members and policy implementers and the quality of a program have a positively relationship.1 The higher perceived support results. Hypothesis 2 The major factors affecting communication are management ability and the quality of the administration system of involved agencies.1 Better management ability means better communication for information transferred to involved stakeholders. 2) level of clarity of goals.” definitions are as follows: 1) Effectiveness of policy implementation includes the degree to which the policy can reach its targeted goal. 3. and the degree to which the stakeholders of this policy are satisfied with policy outcomes.6 Variables and Measurement of Variables 3. the greater the quality of the program. the improvement of the industrial cluster.7 Strong ability of cluster members and policy implementers creates a high probability of successful implementation.67 1. 3. 2. including ability to manage problems).

such as financial funds. teamwork. Management ability refers to the level of implementing units capable of applying measures and regulations in the real practice of implementing industrial cluster projects efficiently. perceived support. 1975). and other support needs play an influential role in successful implementation. successful implementation is also a function of the implementing organization’s ability to do what is required of it (Van Meter and Van Horn. In conclusion. However.68 2) Efficiency of policy implementation is calculated from the benefit cost ratio: B/C ratio.6. Van Meter and Van Horn (1975) noted that resources require government funds and other financial sources supplied to the policy program in order to encourage or facilitate effective implementation. and for other purposes. 3. 3) Perceived Support Industrial cluster implementation requires a considerable body of policy resources in order to facilitate effective administration.2 Independent Variables The independent variables are comprised of 5 factors. This implies that the participation of stakeholders is an important factor in successful implementation. Adequate financing is vital to the effectiveness of policy implementation because funds are needed for the purchase of necessary materials and equipment. administrative processes. in order to acquire technology. Indeed. as discussed below: 1) Participation of stakeholders The participation of stakeholders is vital for every policy to be successful. and human relations & acceptance) represents the performance of policy implementation. it indicates that the policy provides more benefit than cost. human resources. 2) Management Ability The ability of managing organizations is largely determined by the extent to which these organizations are willing to implement policy. adequate funding is one of the major contributing factors to project success. If the B/C ratio is greater than 1. . Voradej Chandarasorn (1993) has indicated in his organization development model that the interlink of participations and other needs variables (leadership. motivation.

” It has been found that the clarity of policy standards and policy goals can determine the outcome of a project’s performance. The lack of the ability of cluster members and policy implementers results the ineffectiveness on the implementation of industrial cluster policy. the clarity of goals is significant from the beginning of a project to its successful implementation at the end. policy standards and policy goals. Also. being touchable. According to Van Meter and Van Horn (1975). Policy should also contain unambiguous directives and provide for a structure implementation process in order to maximize the likelihood that target groups will perform as desired (Sabatier and Mazmanian: 1979. aimed at delaying or compromising fundamental policy objectives. Interestingly. the clarity of goals in both terms. stable. policy needed to be capable for the real practice. Public policy implementation is influenced by both policy standards and policy goals communicated to implementers. 5) Ability of Cluster Members and Policy Implementers The phrase ability of cluster members and policy implementers refers to the ability of these individuals to overcome pressures from within or outside their industrial cluster. specific. these policy standards and policy goals are facilitated to monitor and to enforce. and certain policy. In sum. 481-504). Van Meter and Van Horn (1975) stated that effective implementation requires that project standards and goals be understood by the individuals responsible for the achievement of the project. Also. perceptions. Rivlin (1971: 131) added more explanation for policy standards and goals and made them more understandable and adaptable. can be a good means of establishing and maintaining a reliable foundation for relations between stakeholders from every unit.69 4) Clarity of Goals The meaning of goals here can be elaborated to include “policy standards” and “policy goals. Policy goals should be precisely defined and clearly prioritized. and interpretations. and unexpected solutions of the project. Therefore. Moreover. Clear and precise objectives are essential for providing implementers not only with unambiguous directives but also for project evaluation. whether implementers respond to policy depends on their respective understanding. effective implementation requires a minimum . policy standards and policy goals should be both self-evident and easily measurable.

They suggest that openness of communications and informal and formal linkages with policy makers and policy enforcement bodies are required for effective implementation of an organization’s policy. 1983). The variables below have an indirect effect on “successful implementation.” which are the dependent variables. and informal and formal linkages with policy makers and policy enforcement bodies) which can impinge on an organization’s capacity to implement policy. and authorities can also communicate inconsistent interpretations of the standards and objectives of a policy. some communicators can distort a message. Therefore proper inter-agency coordination is important in order to ensure that the right information and signals are both sent and received. effective and efficient inter-communication arises from the ability of the management of the project. vitality of the organization. is very important for making the cluster implementation process go smoothly. cluster members. conflicts within policy interpretations sometimes happen. either intentionally or unintentionally. and other relevant organizations or units. The intervening variables are listed below: 1) Communication Van Meter and Van Horn (1975) discovered five major characteristics (competence and size of agency staff. which is often lacking in many developing countries (Sabatier and Mazmanian. the greater the ability of cluster members and policy implementers is. . making it more difficult for implementers to carry out policy as intended. Moreover. Similarly. including policy authorities. communication within and between organizations is generally quite complex and usually it is difficult to transmit messages vertically within the organization or horizontally from one organization to another. Also. In conclusion. For example. the more effective policy implementation can be. policy implementers. In conclusion. the useful and routine information about enhancing the capacity of the industrial cluster project is required for successful implementation. openness of communications. the inter-communication among related stakeholders. Also. degree of hierarchical control.70 level of administrative ability. As many organizations are involved with policy implementation within the industrial cluster in Thailand. the coordination between these organizations is very important for the policy implementation process.

the evaluation of the project will represent the extent to which stakeholders are satisfied with the project in terms of goals. but the components of it have what the industrial cluster should have in order to accomplish the goals of the implementing cluster. Elmore (1979) found that the quality of project is applicable to measuring the quality of project since the completed structure of the industrial cluster as it appears in cluster mapping does not seem to be complex. standards. .71 2) Quality of a Project The quality of project is determined by the levels of the industrial cluster structure completed and the satisfaction of stakeholders with the industrial cluster project. less complexity of implementation is required. procedures. Elmore (1979) has stressed that the complexity of a function of both the absolute number of actors and the number of transactions between them are required to accomplish a given task. The number of transactions was shown not to be a product of the overall size of the government concerned. but rather of the interdependence of the actors or agents within it. Also. and the hierarchy of the government unit that takes care of the industrial cluster. In order to create a project that is high quality. The major theme of his paper was that the over-complexity of the current implementation process necessitates a substantial rethinking of legislative and administrative controls and the development of new approaches to the implementation process.

This dissertation will use secondary data from the DIP. Currently. while collecting data. such as the north. the west and east.    A non-experimental design studies actual natural phenomena without any attempt to enforce independent variables that reflect the dependent variable (Suchitra Punyaratabandhu. 4. The non-experimental design is a way to conduct survey research using random questionnaires with the target population. including the concept of the cluster and implementation models. the south. using three groups. including industrial clusters located in different areas in Thailand. the north-east. 2004: 101-102) and has been applied for testing the causal relationships between independent variables and the dependent variable. the survey research is very popular for social science study (Babbie.1 Research Design Kumar (1966: 88) introduced his methodology of research design by dividing it into three groups: 1) experimental design 2) quasi or semi-experimental design. and 3) non-experimental design. the central area. Therefore. The outcome of the dissertation will reveal the characteristics of industrial clusters and will answer questions concerning the factors that lead to the successful implementation of the industrial clusters implemented by the Department of Industrial Promotion (DIP). According to Kumar’s introduction to research design classification. the non-experimental design was chosen as the methodology for collecting data by the DIP. The survey covered all industrial clusters in budget year 2007. 2003: 65). the DIP collectors .72 CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The dissertation is aimed at figuring out the factors that lead to the success of the industrial cluster implementation in Thailand. and Bangkok. The researcher has reviewed related literature for influential factors.

the author found that it was interested and wants to have a better understanding about the policy implementation of industrial clusters was worth pursing. 2003. Questionnaires belonging to the DIP were set up to serve the purpose of being a DIP database for the industrial cluster project and were selected to answer questions from various sources (management level. cohort) Experiments. The secondary data used for this study were direct data from the original source. the purpose of the study. descriptive. Bureau of the Budget. How research is used 2. Neuman (2003) has suggested the dimensions that researchers should consider before conducting research. etc. Table 4.) and to be a retrieving resource for creating industrial cluster articles in quarterly and annually DIP work reports. and the technique for collecting the data. explanatory Cross-sectional. Neuman explains that quantitative research is about the design of research conduction and measurement since it is based upon a deductive approach which focuses on detailed planning before conducting the research. content analysis. time period. research methodology. applied Exploratory. the researcher had to have a clear understanding of the type of research. Office of Public Sector Development Commission.73 never used any treatments or activities intervening during the period of collecting the data. Thailand.1 The Dimensions of Social Research from a Quantitative Approach Dimensions of Research 1. Technique for collecting quantitative data Source: Neuman. Prior to conducting the research. surveys. The way time enters in 4. . Purpose of the study 3. Major Types Basic. Thailand. longitudinal (time series. existing statistics studies In the table above. After reviewing the literature related to the industrial cluster concept and implementation policy. panel.

tables. exploratory research is conducted for three reasons: 1) to satisfy the researcher’s curiosity and desire for better understanding of the topic. Thus. Additionally. charts. Moreover. and discovering regularities and formulating theories Methods of Analysis By using statistics.74 Table 4. however. Neuman. regarding exploration. table. opinions and attitudes. First.2 Characteristics of Quantitative Research Characteristics of Quantitative Research The Purpose Concepts Measurements Types of Data Types of Theory Sample Size Inquiry To test the hypothesis that the researcher begins with The form of distinct variables Systematical creation before data collection and standardization Numbers of precise measurement Largely causal and deductive method Large sample size Narrow in terms of extent inquiry. in the study. nature of issues. conducting a research has three purposes. extent. assembles are required information from a large number of respondents Procedures Topics Standard methods and replication are assumed Aims at explaining prevalence. and explaining causal relationships from hypotheses? Source: Kumar. 2003. incidence. the largest contribution of social science research is to explore interesting topics and to start new and familiar topics. the author applies the quantitative research method based on the resource-based theory and measurement is systematic. Referring to Babbie (2004). 1997. charts. and explaining causal relationships and hypotheses. 2) to test the feasibility of . the data analysis is based on the use of statistics.

is to explain the question “why.” The author further reviews the feasible and potential ways to conduct systematic research. and events. Third. 1991). 1991. . social science research must explain what the researcher observes in situations. Second.75 conducting a more careful study. This purpose. regarding the purpose of explaining. The author found that there are seven steps in the research sequence for the research process (Gill and Johnson. this purpose refers to explaining any phenomenon or event. regarding description. activities. in other words.1 Basic Research Process Source: Gill and Johnson. Identify Broad Area  Select Research Topic  Decide Approach  Formulate Plan  Collect Information  Analyze Data  Present Findings  Figure 4. and 3) to develop methods to be applied to future study.

The careful analysis made reasonable suggestions for improving the implementation of the industrial cluster project to relevant parties such as DIP officials (policy implementers) and enterprises (policy customers). and attitude. such as production cost. The methodology for pursuing the second objective was accomplished through the quantitative method and SPSS and AMOS were applied in order to analyze the variables that lead to the effectiveness and efficiency of the project since effectiveness and efficiency are two factors that determine the successful implementation of the industrial cluster by the DIP. and 2) quality of project. sales and profit.1 shows. and 5) ability of cluster members and policy implementers. 2) management ability. 4) clarity of goals. The unit of analysis is one of the vital parts in the dissertation since it constitutes the entities or .76 As figure 4. for example.2 Unit of Analysis Babbie (2004) has mentioned that most units of analysis for the social sciences are at the individual level and observations are made to describe the characteristics of a number of cluster members. the basic research process assists in understanding the steps in implementing a project. 3) perceived support. the author needed to make a careful analysis of the data results and to review the answered questionnaires. etc. The variables that were used are the following: 1) participation of stakeholders. there were two intervening variables: 1) communication. and views of implementing industrial cluster policy. By applying the above basic research processes. management system. age. This study is aimed at ascertaining the factors that lead to the success of the industrial cluster implemented by the DIP. However. 4. the study uses a quantitative method to be the main methodology to figure out the appropriate causal relationships. as well as consider the actual experience regarding the topic. sex. The data received from the questionnaires revealed the relationships of each variable and outcomes of the policy. change in market share. career. including what the author and others observed. After discovering the factors that lead to successful implementation. the author has added interviews using secondary data from DIP questionnaires in order to gather information concerning the implementation process.

Data were collected by randomly distributing questionnaires to 10 enterprises for each industrial cluster in fiscal year 2007. 4. the unit of analysis can be classified into 7 levels: 1) individual unit.4 Data Collection Method Secondary data were taken into consideration for analysis in the dissertation from the industrial cluster project implemented by the DIP. 5) spatial unit. The second period was from October to November. 4) institutional unit. 2007. 220 enterprises passed the criteria of both mentioned scholars. The period for collecting data was approximately 4 months. The two periods for collection the data are as follows: The first period was from June to July.77 objects of the study. totaling 22 industrial cluster sand 440 enterprises since every industrial cluster has 20 enterprises. However. 2) Sampling Design In the study. The unit of analysis can be stated as the “level of analysis. The reason why the data collection periods were separated into two periods is because the DIP believed that the first period was for the purpose of monitoring how the project ran. for this study. 2007. Therefore. 2) group level.3 Target Population and Sampling 1) Target Population Target population for the dissertation will be enterprises that joined the industrial cluster policy (policy outcome) in budget year 2007. The expected and replied questionnaires totaled 10 enterprises for each industrial cluster. while Hair et al. Anderson and Gerbing (1988) suggest that the minimum sample size should be 150 in order to create a structural equation model (SEM). 4. (2010) suggests that at least a 200 sample size can be considered reasonable for doing the structural equation modeling (SEM). the individual unit or enterprise level will be applied. 3) organization unit. and the second period was set to serve the purpose of evaluating the . the population was 440 enterprises but the sample size was 220 enterprises. 6) societal unit. However. and 7) aggregate unit.

ability of cluster members and policy implementers. The characteristics of the selected questionnaires are as follows: 1) The selected questionnaires as seen in appendix A are composed of 10 parts. The first part concerned general information about the subjects. however. and from very little to a lot. For the Likert scale. the DIP received 220 questionnaires without any missing. The data collection was done in order to obtain information on how enterprises had performed 4.0 were used in the data processing and analysis as follows: . Most questionnaires were handed to the enterprises directly.78 industrial cluster project after the budget year ended in September. management ability. The study used selected questions from the questionnaires received from the DIP database. and efficiency.0 and AMOS version 6. the scales of the selected questionnaires that were used for the study are as follows: (1) 10-point Likert scale from level 1 to level 10 (2) 5-point Likert scale from level 0 to level 5 and from level 1 to level 5 (3) 3-point Likert scale from level 1 to level 3 (4) Decision to say “yes” if the questionnaire respondent agreed with a question or “no” if the questionnaire respondent did not agree with a question. Only few data collectors were hired by the DIP. communication. the DIP randomly distributed them. The constructs of 9 parts (2nd to the 10th part) were ordered as follows: participation of stakeholders. clarity of goals. Thus. For the study. Level 0 meant no opinion. Finally. effectiveness. during the project and what they had obtained for participating in it. Each industrial cluster as required to return 10 replied questionnaires from enterprises so the total number of questionnaires was 220. SPSS version 16. The 2nd to the 10th parts were related to questionnaires to test for statistical analysis.5 Method of Data Analysis The study will be use descriptive statistics to analyze the data and structural equation modeling (SEM). perceived support. The data collectors mostly were DIP officials that were responsible for taking care of that cluster. level 1 to any level meant strongly disagree to strongly agree. quality of project. 2) Babbie (2004) recommended that items should be weighted equally.

. management ability. and elaborating the analysis in each category was analyzed. for example. i. each answer representing the answer for that cluster or 20 enterprises.79 1) Cross-tabulation was used to determine if there were other factors characteristics of each respondent. An example of research that used the principle of the “disaggregate method” is the case of the study on the Promotion of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors for Human Resource Sustainable Development in the Organization by Sudayu Teeravanittrakul (2004). The author solved this problem by using the principle of the “disaggregate method. education level. the author used excel to disaggregate the data. clarity of goals. 2) The general data including participation of stakeholders. This methodology is much better than leaving that missing data and doing an analysis (Kanlaya Vanichbuncha. 4) For the missing answers.” The disaggregate method is a regression that adjusts higher levels of a variable to a lower level of variable. duration of work experience. The principle of disaggregate regression can be done with Excel or with the Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM). However. quality of project. In the study. etc. However. In his study. all questionnaires were collected from 220 respondents. Teeravanittrakul used the principle of a “disaggregate regression” to solve the problem of unequal population. perceived support.e. and the result will cause every variable is in the same level of variable (Numchai Suppareakchaisakul. and successful implementation of industrial cluster implementation in Thailand by statistical data. Replacing missing value is a way to approximate missing values to make complete information in order to be beneficial for analyzing all data and bringing about a true result. ability of cluster members and policy implementers. the principle of “replacing missing value by series mean” was applied to solve the problem. frequency distribution.” DIP collectors asked few questions of the cluster representative so there were 22 answers. career. 2009). 2007). for this study. sex. the author adjusted 22 units of variables (a cluster representative) to 220 units of variables (10 enterprises per cluster and 220 enterprises in total). percentage. in the study. 3) Very little data from the DIP database was collected in terms of “group level” or “cluster level. he measured “organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB)” on two levels: 1) the school level. communication. and 2) the teacher level.

2003: 2). (2010) discusses the idea that structural equation modeling (SEM) is a multivariate technique combining dimensions of factor analysis and multiple regressions. SEM has three main characteristics that are different from other multivariate techniques. 6) Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was used to bring intercorrelated variables together. the author could not gather different constructing scales for different questions together. as well as the relationships among many latent constructs. all measured or observable variables are related to every factor according to the value of a factor loading estimate. (2010) also mentions that the EFA is used to explore data and offers information about how many factors are necessary to be the best for the represented data. The author applied the concept of “standardized data” by Z-score to form questions for analysis (Kanlaya Vanichbuncha. . The goal of the EFA is to reduce the dimensionality of the original space and to give an interpretation to the new space. Therefore.80 5) In case of different constructing scales. 2004) as see in the formula below: Xi − X S Z= Figure 4. Habing. Hair et al. 2004. In addition. spanned by a reduced number of new dimensions which are supposed to underline to the old ones or to explain the variance in the observed variables in terms of underlying latent factors. as follows: (1) SEM can provide simultaneous estimation of multiple and interrelated dependent relationships. 1993: 254.2 Z-Score Source: Kanlaya Vanichbuncha. SEM allows the researcher to simultaneously study a series of interrelated dependence relationships among the measures or observed variables and latent or construct variables. Z-Score will always have a mean = 0 and SD = 1. factor analysis offers the possibility of using the output in subsequent analyses (Rietveld and Van Hout. 7) Hair et al.

SEM provides a mechanism for accounting error in measuring variables. however. it can predict and explain a set of endogenous constructs and also needs equations that explain endogenous constructs (η) in addition to explaining the observed variables. In SEM. Hair et al. the objective is to create a model that predicts a single dependent variable.” “simultaneous equation modeling. constructs or latent variables are shown in circles and measured or observed variables are shown in rectangles. X2. SEM has been one of the most popular model to be used in research analysis with many advantages and has outperformed traditional multiple regression analysis. such as “causal modeling. In a regression analysis. SEM was considered appropriate for this study. equations are used to explain the observed and latent variables.…. Xn).” “causal analysis. and tests the fit of the model to the obtained measurement data with hypothesis as a model.” Ullman (2006) states that SEM can be seen as a collection of statistical techniques by allowing a set of relations between one or more independent and dependent variables to be analyzed at a time. For this reason. (2010) states that in structural equation models. SEM can be stated in words. SEM and regression analysis have similar equations in elaborating the dependent variable (y) with multiple independent variables (X1.81 (2) SEM has the ability to represent unobserved or latent concepts in the relationships as well as to be able to solve measurement error in the estimation process. .” and “analysis of covariance structures. (3) SEM is one model that can explain all relationships.” Thus. X3. in a structural equation model. Sabherwal and Becerra (2003) have stated that “it (SEM) operates the constructs of interest with a measurement instrument. For the main structural equation.

3 1 X1   X2 X3   y1   y2   y3   δ1   δ2   δ3   ε1   ε2   ε3   Figure 4.1   2 λX 3 . is a path representing a causal relationship (regression coefficient) from a ζ to an η .3 Path Diagram of a Simple Structure Theory Note: ζ is a construct associated with measured with measured x variables. .1 ζζ1  1 λX . is the error term associated with an estimation. η   rrepresents the endogenous constructs in a model and on one another. λ y is a path representing the factor loading between a latent construct and a measure y variable. measured y variables. η   can be both sides of the equation because endogenous constructs can be dependent λx   is a path representing the factor loading between a latent construct and a measure x variable.82 γ 1. measured x variables. is the error term associated with an estimation.1   2 λY . 1 1 η1   λx . δ  ε  γ1   β is a path that represents a causal relationship (regression coefficient) from a η construct to another η construct. 1 1 λ y .1 λY .

2 ζ2  η1   β 2. Cummings. Boadu.3 ζ3   Figure 4.1 γ 1. Hayduk. The model’s parameters indicate an indicator variance/covariance matrix which is possible for data variance/ .4 Path Diagram of a Complex Structural Model The structural equation can be illustrated as η = Bη + Γξ + ξ Β represents the parameter efficient linking endogenous with other endogenous constructs. Γ represents the corresponding matrix of parameter coefficient linking the exogenous constructs (η ) with the endogenous constructs (η ). Pazdeka-Robinson and Boulianne (2007) state that the structural equation model expresses theory-based causal connections between the latent and related observed or measured variables. ζ represents the error in the prediction of η .1 η2   γ 1.83 ζ1   γ 1.

regarding constructs consisting of “causal indicators” or “measure indicators. the model is called a “reflective model. if all constructs in the model are reflective. and observations that are needed to study constructs.” for this reason. However.” In the meantime.” Those indicators can be seen in a reflective model. For a reflective model.” but if at least one construct is formative. According to Edwards and Bagozzi (2000). Regarding types of constructs. but for the formative model. η will be shown as being caused by indicators.” and disturbance term. those measures or indicators that determine a construct are called “causal indicator” or “formative indicator. the model shows that the covariance matrix could be the population covariance matrix if the model fit well with the data. those constructs are called “formative constructs” or “composite variables. interviews. comprised of the population from the collected data. The two types should be identified in the research to present the relationship between those measures and the latent constructs. η will be shown as causing indicators. Additionally.5 below. Cronbach’s alpha or other reliability measures can be applied to ensure that the measures are reliable (Bollen and Lennox. The similarity or dissimilarity of those variance/covariance matrices is shown the likelihood of observing the data covariance matrix in that model as well as having causal estimates.84 covariance matrix. therefore. Quantifiable scores are abstractions and describe the phenomenon or event of theoretical interest in a research. The difference between the reflective and formative model can be seen in the arrow’s direction. Petter and Straub (2007) point out that indicators used for a study are unobservable or latent variables. 1991). the model will be called a “formative model. There are two types: formative and reflective.” When constructing a structural model. and those indicators are claimed as “reflective indicators” or “effect indicators. Quantifiable scores are obtained from self-reports. as illustrated in figure 4.η . and Straub (2007) state that the relationships between measures and latent constructs need to be considered while using SEM. measured indicators are observable. Thus. On the other hand. internal consistency is very important for the reflective construct. constructs are used to describe observable phenomena such as population performance and attitude. Petter. in social science.

85

Formative Model

Reflective Model 

ζ1 η  η 

X1

X2

X3

Y1  

Y2

Y3  

ε1  
Figure 4.5 Formative and Reflective Models Note: while Yi and X i = = = = item scores / observations

ε2  

ε3  

η εi ζ

endogenous construct or latent construct measurement error for indicator i a disturbance term

To apply SEM for analyzing the study of the successful implementation of industrial cluster implementation in Thailand is to test the model whether it follows to assumptions with empirical data. The researcher’s assumptions were the relationships between analyzed variables with a clear framework and theory. The objective was to check whether the data were identical to the relationships according to the theory. The SEM as applied to evaluate the correctness of the model built by the researcher. The measure comprised 2 parts:. 1) the Overall Model Fit Measure and 2) the Component Fit Measure (Viratchai, 1994: 53 - 55). The measures were used for the model development. In the study, the criteria for model fit measure are described as follows: 1) For the Overall Model Fit Measure, the statistics were applied as follows:

86 (1) Chi-square Statistic was applied to test whether the covariance matrices of the population and the expected covariance matrices were different (Bollen, 1989: 263), with Type I Error at the statistically significant level of 0.05. If the chi-square statistic was not significant at this level, the covariance matrices of the population and the evaluated covariance matrices were indifferent. It was summarized that the model fit the empirical data. (2) The Fit Index represents the goodness of fit between the model and the empirical data, i.e. the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) the Adjust Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI), the Normal Fit Index (NFI), and the Incremental Fit Index (IFI). The value was ranked between 0 - 1. A value higher than 0.90 meant that the model fit the empirical data (Arbuckle, 1995: 529). A value near 1 meant that the model mostly fit to the empirical data (Bollen, 1989: 270). The Comparative Fit Index (CFI) was between 0 – 1, provided that CFI near 1 meant that the model fit the empirical data. (3) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) was developed since chi-square depended on the sample size (n) per Degree of Freedom (df). Higher numbers of parameters made the Chi-square lower, resulting insignificant testing results. RMSEA represents unfitness between model and covariance matrices of the population. The accepted RMSEA should be lower than 0.05 (Brown and Cudeek, 1993: 141 - 162) but not higher than 0.08. RMSEA = 0 means an exact fit (Arbuckle, 1995: 523). (4) Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) measures residual average from a comparison between the variances and covariance matrices of the population variable and measure. The index works well if all observed variables are standard variables. A value near 1 means that the model fits the empirical data (Bollen, 1989: 257 - 258). (5) The Chi-square statistic comparing the tested model and the independent model with the saturated model (CMIN/DF) was used to compare the model fit with the value of CMIN/DF was lower than 2, meaning that the model fit the empirical data. (Carmines and McIver, 1981: 80). 2) In the Component Fit Measure after the Overall Model Fit Measure, the important factor to be measured was the accuracy and reasonability of

87 results for each part. With this measure, it was found whether the model of each relationship between variables exactly fit he empirical data. In this research, 3 groups of parameters were considered as follows: (1) The standard error should be low. Interpretation whether the standard error was high or low was based on the significance level of the parameter. If the parameter as significant, the standard error was low. If the parameter as insignificant, the standard error was high and the model was not good (Viratchai 1999: 53). For the error estimated by the Lisrel Model, the OLS will be accurate if most observed variables of the model are normally distributed (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1993: 59). (2) The value of the Square Multiple Correlation (R2) or Coefficient of Determination of Observed variables) ranges between 0 to 1. High value means high validity of the model (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1993: 26; Viratchai, 1999: 59). The Lisrel Model expands 40 percent of the variable variance considered to be good and acceptable (Saris and Strenkhorst, 1984: 282).

4.6 Operationalization of Variables
The operationalization of variables is the process of defining variables as tangible factors in order to make them more measurable. The table below illustrates how the author operationalized the construct or variables, and the table demonstrates the operationalization of each variable.

88

Table 4.3 Definitions and Operationalization of Variables

Variables 1. Participation of stakeholders

Definitions The term refers to stakeholders being willing to comply with industrial cluster project. In addition, stakeholders demonstrate continuity and consistency.

Operationalization Degree to which stakeholders participate in initiative and implemented processes Degree to which there is internal coordination of the project Degree to which level of intended activities has been implemented

References Voradej Chandarasorn (1993) Horowitz (1996) METI (2005a) Browne and Wildavsky (1984) Berman, et al (1977)

Questionnaire Section No. 1 – 16

No. 17 88

No. 18

2. Management ability

The term refers to applying measures/regulations efficiently.

Degree of ability of budget management by Department of Industrial Promotion (DIP)

Bardach (1977) Edward (1980)

No. 19

3 (Continued) Variables Definitions Operationalization Degree of clarity of hierarchical control Degree of responsibility for work assignment Degree of management ability of Department of Industrial Promotion (DIP) in order to encourage internal cooperation for running industrial cluster project Degree of success of implementing activities as yearly plan References Questionnaire Section No. 22 89 No. 21 No.89 Table 4.49 . 23 . 20 No.

Operationalization Degree to which level of allocation budget is sufficient for project administration Degree to which numbers of assigned government officials are sufficient for project administration Degree to which numbers of office instruments are sufficient for project administration References Van Meter and Van Horn (1975) Questionnaire Section No. 52 . Perceived Support Definitions The term refers to the financial. 50 Mazmanian and Sabatier (1983) No.3 (Continued) Variables 3. 51 90 No. administrative. and resource support available for implementing agencies for the purpose of fulfilling the industrial cluster project.90 Table 4.

60 . 53 No. and project outcomes Degree to which cluster members evaluate the clarity of the industrial cluster project by observing implementation in various activities References Van Meter and Van Horn (1975) Questionnaire Section No.3 (Continued) Variables 4. Clarity of Goal Definitions The term means that policy standards and objectives are clear and measurable. measurable. implementation processes. policy standards and objectives can greatly assist implementers in the task of translating policy standards and objectives for effective and efficient projects.91 Table 4. The existence of clear. 54 – 56 91 No. Operationalization Degree of clarity and understanding of industrial cluster development Degree to which cluster members understand project objectives. 57 .

64 – 76 . 61 – 62 cognition in industrial cluster NESDB (2003) 92 Degree of ability to apply information for implementation of industrial cluster project Degree of quality of cluster development agents in playing their role No. Operationalization Degree of ability and References Bowman and Lester (1990) Questionnaire Section No. 63 No.3 (Continued) Variables 5. Ability of cluster members and policy implementers Definitions The term refers to ability and cognition regarding the project as well as being able to adjust procedures to obtain maximum benefit for the project. 61 – 62 No.92 Table 4.

Communication Definitions The term refers to interorganizational communications between implementing units and cluster members. Operationalization Degree of level of received information from related units in Ministry of Industry (MOI) References Benson (1975) Hoffman (1982) Bogo and Globerman (1995) Edward (1980) Questionnaire Section No. 77 93 Degree of level of received information from public and private organizations Degree of exchanging information among cluster members McLaughin (1975) No. 79 .93 Table 4.3 (Continued) Variables 6. 78 Nakamura and Smallwood (1980) No. advice. and assistance.82 . The definition extends to the giving and receiving of information.

Quality of project Definitions The term refers to the completed composition of stakeholders and level of satisfaction with the project by policy customers. 129 – 145 8.3 (Continued) Variables 7. 84 No. Effectiveness The term refers to which policy achieved its intended goal with respect to the benefit of Degree of considering industrial cluster as important and beneficial Pressman and Wildavsky (1973) No. 85 – 128 94 No. 83 No.94 Table 4. 146 – 15 . Operationalization Degree of the concentration of industrial cluster Degree of the quickness of forming industrial cluster Degree of satisfaction with the service of DIP officials Degree of satisfaction with the service of project’s consultancy References Voradej Chandarasorn (1993) McLauglin (1975) Questionnaire Section No.

95

Table 4.3 (Continued)

Variables

Definitions any given policy. In addition, effectiveness can be claimed as a set of actions taken by encourage compliance.

Operationalization Degree of the success in doing various activities Degree of clarity of forming

References Van Meter and Van Horn (1975) Tientenberg (1992) Patton (1979)

Questionnaire Section No. 151

No. 152

stakeholders to compel or industrial cluster

95

Berman, et al (1977) 9. Efficiency The term refers to the ability to obtain maximum output under a given cost or given output with minimum cost. Measuring by benefit-cost ratio (BCR) Patton (1979) Zerbe and Dively (1994) Part 10

96 The steps of the design of the present research appear in figure 4.6 below. Such steps are vital for researchers in order to follow what they intend to do in the research.

Selected Questionnaires

Reliability Analysis Content Validity
Data pass criteria

Fit Indices Assessment

Research Results

Interpretations and Conclusion

Figure 4.6 Steps in Research Design In summary, this chapter explains in detail the research process, including the population, the data collection method, and the statistical methodology for data analysis. The research methodology selected to be used is very important since the appropriate methodology will lead to obtaining a reliable outcome.

CHAPTER 5

DATA ANALYSIS
The details in this chapter represent the survey results and general qualifications of the target population. The study comprises descriptive data and data analysis in order to express the results of the research in each indicator/variable as well as the causal relationships following the hypotheses. The results of reasonable data analysis will help the author make a powerful conclusion for the study. 5.1 Results of Descriptive Statistics Table 5.1 General Information on Enterprises

Items Years of established enterprises 1943 - 1947 1948 - 1952 1953 - 1957 1958 - 1962 1963 - 1967 1968 - 1972 1973 - 1977 1978 - 1982 1983 - 1987 1988 - 1992 1993 - 1997 1998 - 2002 2003 - 2007 Total

Frequency 1 1 6 1 6 5 7 12 18 23 44 50 46 220

Percentage 0.45 0.45 2.73 0.45 2.73 2.27 3.18 5.45 8.18 10.45 20.00 22.73 20.91 100.00

98 Table 5.1 (Continued)

Items Form of Commercial Registration Individual Partnership Company Limited Others Total Investment Characteristics All Thai investment Joint Investment between Thais and foreigners Total Tentative Selling Volume Increasing Stable Decreasing Total Tentative of Profit Volume Increasing Stable Decreasing Items Total

Frequency 94 28 59 37 220 218 2 220 87 57 76 220 66 56 98 Frequency 220

Percentage 42.73 12.73 26.82 16.82 100.00 99.09 0.91 100.00 39.55 25.91 34.55 100.00 30.00 25.45 44.55 Percentage 100.00

Table 5.1 above illustrate the statistical data in 5 categories: years of established enterprises, form of commercial registration, investment characteristics, tentative selling volume, and tentative profit volume as detailed below. 1) Years of established enterprises As shown in table 5.1, in 2007, enterprises that joined industrial cluster projects started their business from 1943 to 2007 and there was a big difference in years of establishment. The enterprises that had the longest and shortest establishment

2) Form of Commercial Registration In 2007.55 percent) due to an expanded production line. receiving orders from new customers.1 above..73 percent. The years 1998 to 2002 exhibited the highest number of enterprises starting their business.73 percent. Only two industrial clusters (0. 4) Tentative Selling Volume Most enterprises believed that they should have higher selling volume (39. . OTOP.73 percent.91 percent) had joint ventures with foreigners.99 were 64 years and 1 year. enterprises could not increase their prices if they still wanted to be in the market.09 percent. 3) Investment Characteristics Most investments were from Thai citizens. However. The second type of commercial registration was the company limited.” as illustrated in table 5. for 12.55 percent thought that they should have a lower selling volume because of slow economic growth and lack of political confidence. the least commercial registrations signed up as partnerships. 34. some enterprises thought that they should have a stable profit (25. etc.45 percent) since they were in a situation of “low cost and high profit” or “high cost and low profit. 16. correcting production and marketing plans. However. equal to 99.82 percent registered as others. most enterprises registered as individuals. at 42. 5) Tentative Profit Volume Forty-four point fifty-five percent had the idea that they should have lower profit due to the higher cost of raw materials and because product prices were competitive. accounting for 22. those two industrial clusters: Processed Oranges in Chiangmai Province (joint venture with Myanmar) and Chonburi Automotive / Machinery Parts in Chonburi Province (joint venture with the Japanese and the Taiwanese).82 percent. the textile group. respectively. at 26. such as the agricultural group. the house wife group. and their products becoming more familiar in their customers’ eyes.

6 4. at 95.6 95.1 Note: The respondents were from government officials that are responsible for those industrial cluster.DIP .German Technical Cooperation . there were some industrial clusters where the establishers did not come only from the DIP. therefore.German Technical Cooperation Establishers .2 above. Kanchanaburi Province . it can be seen that most industrial clusters developed by the DIP were initiated by the DIP.German Technical Cooperation .5 9. 1 Industrial Clusters Gems and Jewelry Province Kanchanaburi Province 2 3 4 Processing Oranges Processing Longan Mulberry Paper Chiangmai Province Chiangmai Province Chiangmai Province . Table 5.Provincial Office. as the following details below indicate (table 5. From table 5. However. Sources of establishment of industrial clusters could be from more than one source.5 percent.100 Table 5. Frequency 4 3 1 21 2 Percentage 18.2 13.3). 2007.3 Establishing Units of Industrial Clusters No. one respondent can answer more than one source of establishment.2 Establishment of Industrial Clusters Sources of Establishment Cluster members/enterprises Private organizations Representative of people in that area DIP Other government units Source: DIP.

Pichit Provice .The Federation of Thai Industries. 5 6 Industrial Clusters Textiles Engines Province Chiangmai Province Phitsanulok Province Establishers .DIP .The Federation of Thai Industries.Food Processing Enterprises in Suphanburi Province 10 Chonburi Automotive / Machinery Parts Chonburi Province .101 Table 5.DIP .JICA .3 (Continued) No.Community of Rice Mill. Pichit Chapter .The Federation of Thai Industries.German Technical Cooperation . Phitsanulok Chapter 7 Rice Processing Pichit Province .DIP . Suphanburi Chapter .Office of Agriculture.Northern Industrial Estate (Pichit) .JICA .Pichit Chamber of Commerce .DIP .DIP . Pichit Province 8 9 Silk Products Suphanburi Food Industry Khonkaen Province Suphanburi Province .

Parawood Product Enterprises in Suphanburi Province 12 Parawood Suratthani Province .4 Summary of Obstacles to Implementing Industrial Clusters in Fiscal Year 2007 Obstacles 1.5 Business characteristics of cluster members Total Frequency 8 9 15 8 10 4 51 6 28 8 2 7 105 Percentage 7. Characteristics of industrial cluster 7. 11 Industrial Clusters Eastern Parawood Products Province Chonburi Province .8 48.1 Attitude of cluster members who participated in the project 7.6 1.6 5.7 100 .JICA Table 5.5 3.DIP . Implementation of government officials who are responsible for the project 4.DIP Establishers .7 26.6 8.3 (Continued) No.6 9.3 7.7 7.6 14.2 Cooperation of cluster members/enterprises 7.4 Demand of cluster members/enterprises 7.102 Table 5.3 Knowledge and understanding of cluster members/enterprises 7. Cooperation of related organizations 6. Budget and administrative expenditures 2. Time-duration of implementing industrial cluster project 3. Implementation of consultants who are responsible for the industrial cluster project 5. Cluster members/enterprises 7.9 6.

cluster members/enterprises did not have enough time to clear out their own business in order to be able to join activities. and this caused some cluster members/enterprises to not know where the implemented budgets really came from. But. This can cause consultants to not have enough time to run a project. 3) Implementation of government officials that were responsible for the project The problems that were found for this obstacle were: (1) The announcements of activities by DIP officials were mostly late and had almost reached the deadline. . consultants have to rush to implement a project due to the budget management plans of the DIP which indicate when payment has to be reimbursed. The cluster members/enterprises had to help sequence activities by priority.4 . 5) Cooperation of related organizations The concept of the industrial cluster is a very new fashion in many related organizations. (2) Some industrial clusters hired consultants to run the project. The result was that DIP officials did not have enough time to manage the implementation of the project well.103 Following table 5. 2) Time-duration of implementing industrial cluster project Since the duration of implementing a project was set in a fiscal year. DIP officials did not have sufficient budget for transportation costs in order to take care of them. and sometimes the DIP faces difficulties in asking for their cooperation since some related organizations consider that the cluster concept is not a beneficial policy. 4) Implementation of consultants that are responsible for the project Industrial cluster plans mostly are of long duration project. in reality. Therefore. 1) Budget and administrative expenditures It was found that the provided budget from the DIP was limited and insufficient so that the cluster members/enterprises could not do all of the activities that they intended. the DIP or from consultants. Moreover. For some clusters and cluster members/enterprises located at a far distance. the provided budget for each cluster was of the same amount. the summary of each obstacle is presented below. it caused the actual implementation of the project to be less than 1 year.

They did not see the benefits of the project. (5) Business characteristics of cluster members/enterprises Some cluster members/enterprises lacked the financial capital necessary to run their business. but DIP activities have not served their need regarding market opportunity. as Thailand Standard Industrial Classification (TSIC-2001). those cluster members/enterprises could not apply what they had trained to real practice due to insufficient budget. Most common problems for cluster members/enterprises are to seek new market channels. the components of the cluster are composed of supply chain and industries from upstream to downstream. They had to run their own businesses so they did not have time to join the project. so they did not totally corporate in implementing it. The DIP provided a good deal of trainings to supplement cluster ability such as potential enhancement and increasing productivities. (2) Cooperation of cluster members/enterprises Most cluster members/enterprises were SMEs. according to the questionnaires. but in reality. However. 7) Cluster members/enterprises (1) Attitude of cluster members that participated in the industrial cluster project Many cluster members/enterprises believed that to participate in the industrial cluster project could make them face disadvantages so they were not willing to open what they considered to be a secret. it can be adapted and able to identify key success factors of 22 industrial clusters by grouping them into 7 groups of industry. as follows: . In addition. these components do not have all of the completed components as stated. (3) Knowledge and understanding of cluster members/enterprises Some cluster members/enterprises lacked understanding of the cluster concept. (4) Demand of cluster members/enterprises Cluster members/enterprises are composed of different businesses so that the cluster activities were difficult to serve their needs since their interests were not in common.104 6) Characteristics of the industrial cluster According to cluster mapping.

(5) To cooperation in reducing production costs such as sharing orders of raw material and increasing production potential. The key success factors were as follows: (1) To promote and to create a market channel. at the Suphanburi Food Industry in Suphanburi province. Supahnburi province. and Rice Processing in Pichit province. (2) To develop public relationships through an information system in order to receive useful information and to be a channel for market distribution. (3) To continue activities to motivate strong relationships among cluster members. (6) To seek product standard approval in order to create reliability of demanders. (5) To cooperate in reducing production costs such as sharing orders of raw materials and increasing production potential. (2) To develop a public relationship system by setting up a centralized network for transferring and exchanging information in order to receive up-to-date information and to quickly exchange information. (7) To enhance human development. (3) To continue cluster activities for the purpose of strengthening cooperation among cluster members.105 1) The Agricultural group comprises the processing of Oranges and the processing Longan in Chiangmai province. success factors were as follows: (1) To promote the industrial cluster by continuously creating innovation in research and development and technological transfer among cluster members. and the Processing of Seafood in Nakornsithammarat province. (4) To develop labor skill for increasing knowledge and expertise in everyday work. (7) To create a market channel domestically and internationally. (6) To receive product standardization for exporting. The key . and Udornthani province. 2) The food group comprises the Processing of Pig Products in Nakornratchasima province. (4) To promote and develop the research and development of industrial cluster in order to receive proper technology for increasing their productivity. Phitsanulok province.

(3) To develop product standardization in order to meet international standards. The key success factors were as follows: (1) To promote and to create a domestic and international market channel by developing design and market research in order to serve the demand of buyers and by putting cluster products on a worldwide electronic system in order to seek new market channel sand to obtain international customers. (2) To develop skillful labor for knowledge and expertise in doing good work. (4) To receive the certification of product standardization for exporting from reliable standardization agencies. (3) To continue creating activities for building close relationships among cluster members. (1) To create a linkage of the raw material dimension and technological transfer between the parawood sector and its products. (4) To promote newly designed products and to register those products for having the protection of intellectual property to patents in order to avoid the imitation. (2) To promote the skill of labor for increasing knowledge and expertise. The key success factors were as follows: (1) To create a new market channel and to develop public relationships. (5) To develop human resources regarding creating knowledge about the industrial cluster and developing business administration. Textiles in Chiangmai province. and Silk Products Ubon in Ubonratchathani province. (4) To create new product design. 4) The Parawood group comprises Eastern Parawood products in Chonburi province and Parawood in Suratthani province. 5) The Ceramic group comprises only a Ceramic cluster in Lampang province. . (3) To create a market channel and to increase the efficiency of product distribution.106 3) The textile group comprises Silk Products in Khonkaen province. (2) To promote innovation and technological transfer.

The dissertation applies the structural equation model (SEM) to study measurement and latent constructs following many researchers (Petter and Straub. The key success factors were as follows: (1) To promote and to create a domestic and international market channel in both the academic and distributed market.107 6) The Engine group comprises Chonburi Automotive/Machinery Parts in Chonburi province. 5. the author has integrated the following details. clarity of goals (CG). (2) To promote the skill of labor for increasing knowledge and expertise. (2) To develop public relationships through an information system. (3) To cooperate in decreasing production costs. ability of cluster members and policy implementers (ACP). perceived support (SUP).2 Statistical Testing A model for the successful implementation of industrial cluster implementation in Thailand has been conducted in order to study the casual relationships which affect successful implementation by focusing on the following factors: participation of stakeholders (PS). and quality of program (QP) with successful implementation (SI) of industrial cluster implementation in Thailand as follows. 1st craft Bangkok in Bangkok and suburban areas. The key success factors were as follows: (1) To promote innovation and technological transfer. communication (COM). and mulberry paper in Chiangmai province. leather. 2007). 7) The furniture and accessories group comprises furniture. In this dissertation. In order to test the model by using the SEM. and Engine in Phitsanulok province. management ability (MA). . (3) To promote and to create new product design.0 in order to test the model assumptions with empirical data. (4) To create a new market channels. the analysis of the successful implementation of industrial cluster implementation in Thailand uses the Analysis of Moment Structure for Research (AMOS) version 6.

the author has tested 220 sets of questionnaires for reliability analysis.” Reliability was related to the consistency of the results obtained from the measuring instrument in the dissertation. If the instrument for measuring was gathered by questionnaires. 1978: 245). the questions in the questionnaire correspondent to reliability should be simple. 2000). In addition. Acceptable reliability must have a Cronbach alpha coefficient (α) equal to or greater than 0. ⎛ ⎜ K ⎜1 − α = K − 1 ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ Figure 5.1 Cronbach Alpha Coefficient ( α ) ∑ K δ 2 X 2 Yi i=1 δ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ Note: K = the number of components (K-items or testlets) 2 δ X = the variance of the observed total test scores 2 δ Yi = the variance of component i for the current sample of persons For the dissertation. High reliability expresses the idea that internal validity exists and the measures can represent the same latent construct.108 The dissertation was assessed by using both “reliability” and “validity. reliability is an indicator that shows convergence validity. (Cronbach.1 Reliability Analysis In the dissertation. The following is the reliability formula. (2010). clear words and easy to understand in order to obtain the same results on different occasions (Finn.70 (Nunnally. then the questions should obtain the same answer each time they are asked. According to Hair et al. . the results of the reliability analysis are shown in the table below. 5. 1990: 204).2.

quality of program (0.109 Table 5.9208).7547 0. Thus. 5.5 Factors and Reliability Analysis (Cronbach’s Alpha) Factors Participation of Stakeholders Management Ability Perceived Support Clarity of Goal Ability of Cluster Members and Policy Implementers Communication Quality of program Successful Implementation Numbers of Items 47 31 5 10 16 6 64 13 Cronbach’s Alpha 0. There .7758 0.9184). clarity of goal (0.2 Validity 1) Content Validity Validity is a measurable instrument and there are various components of validity.7795).9208 0. internal validity refers to the comparative differences that cause the given effect in the dissertation.7795 0. To notice from the distinction between “internal” validity and “external” validity.7758).8455 According to the Cronbach’s reliability test as it appears in the above table.9940 0. external validity refers to the extent to which the results of the research can be generalized.9940). (2010) since the lowest reliability was 0. the results are as follows: participation of stakeholders (0.9940 (quality of program).7712).9184 0. management ability (0.7547). successful implementation (0. perceived support (0. the author uses “content validity” to reconfirm that the selected questions were the proper and appropriate questionnaires for data analysis by asking for recommendations from the industrial cluster experts from the DIP. In addition.8455).2. ability of cluster members and policy implementers (0.7712 0. Moreover. The Cronbach’s alpha of those factors passed the suggestion from Hair et al. communication (0.7547 (clarity of goal) and the highest reliability was 0. validity is a representation of the dissertation results.

management ability.6 below. and this means that the indicator can be considered acceptable due to sufficient validity. communication. Yuparat Satawiriya Industrial Cluster Project Manager Department of Industrial Promotion The two industrial cluster experts above have had long work experience regarding the development of the industrial cluster from the beginning of the project and they could be counted on as being the persons that knew the most about the industrial cluster in the DIP. In the study. quality of program. clarity of goals. they were the best resources for obtaining recommendations regarding this matter. via exploratory factor analysis (EFA). EFA must have a value of factor loading equal to or above 3. 2) Convergent Validity Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is the measurement that assures validity of the indicator or convergent validity.110 were two industrial cluster experts that the author asked for recommendations concerning industrial cluster policy and for questionnaire review. namely: (1) Mrs. perceived support. The analysis on the value of KMO and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity helped in the consideration of appropriate indicators/variables to measure the exploratory factor analysis (EFA). . Uraiwan Chantarayu Director Bureau of Industrial Management Department of Industrial Promotion (2) Mrs. Therefore. respectively. They are responsible for managing the industrial cluster overall in both the following and monitoring analysis.0. as illustrated in table 5. ability of cluster members and policy Implementers. the author tested the validity of the indicator/variable to measure the participation of stakeholders. and successful implementation of industrial cluster implementation in Thailand.

the calculated value of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin was greater than 0.6 Explaining the Various Statistical Values for Considering the Appropriateness of EFA Statistical Value Measurement KMO Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Chi-Square Participation of Stakeholders Management ability Perceived Support Clarity of goals Ability of Cluster Members and Policy Implementers Communication Quality of Program Successful Implementation Note: * means p value < 0. H0 was rejected This means that the variables have a relationship with each other and are appropriate for using the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) technique.05 0.871* 562.000 0.6 above. quality of project in the study of successful .05.000 0.868 0. communication. As seen in table 5. management ability. H1 : The variables are related.186* 81 165 10 45 0.595* 6379. available data were appropriate to use of the technique of exploratory factor analysis (EPA).517 0.136* 120 15 128 78 0. Therefore. clarity of goals. In addition.895 0.674* 1965. To test the statistical distribution by chi-square. the measurement of the participation of stakeholders.527 0.793 2300.000 0. Therefore.696 4517. perceived support.805 0.111 Table 5.5 and approaching 1. H0 : The variables are not related. Therefore. ability of cluster members and policy implementers.000 0.001* 143.878 0.000 0. it has significant value less than 0.261* 5787.000 0.000 0. Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was used for testing the hypotheses.000 df Sig.239* 1191.

2). the high correlated group of questions to serve the construct and participation of stakeholders was considered from a factor loading greater than 0. Coakes and Steel.351 to 0. However. In addition to the loading.311 to 0. 1) Participation of stakeholders The participation of stakeholders represented the level to which participation of stakeholders join cluster activities. An absolute value of level equal to or greater than 0.112 implementation of industrial cluster implementation in Thailand were appropriate for using the exploratory factor analysis (EFA).” 2) Management ability Management ability represented the level to which management ability to administrate industrial cluster project. which demonstrated a strong level of convergent validity.300 was considered acceptable to measure convergent validity (Chin. 1998: 1-3.600. Weights were also considered to be the beta coefficients of the multiple regression formula. the absolute values are ranging from 0. perceived support.” “participation in the period of initiation and monitoring the project. 2001). and quality of program in the successful implementation of industrial cluster implementation in Thailand are as follows: Analyzing the indicator item loadings for each measured construct assessed the convergent validity. To consider the validity of variables by the convergent validity of the participation of stakeholders.” “creating a cluster development agent (CDA). The high correlated group of questions regarded the following: “identify the problem. The high correlated group of questions regarded the following: “cooperation among cluster members and relevant organizations.1). As shown in appendix B (table B.” “gathering . ability of cluster members and policy implementers. which demonstrated a strong level of convergent validity. clarity of goals. the absolute values are ranging from 0. As shown in appendix B (table B. the construct loadings were strong. weights were provided to understand the importance of the construct score.” and “initiation of implementing industrial cluster.968.815. the management ability. communication. the construct loadings were strong. The factor loadings of each construct are explained as follows.” “providence information.

which demonstrated a strong level of convergent validity.113 information and characteristics of industrial cluster as well as analyzing strengths.446 to 0. the construct loadings were strong. which demonstrated a strong level of convergent validity. and threats of industrial cluster. the absolute values are from 0.” “ability to coordinate. the absolute value are ranging from 0.” “kindness among cluster members or enterprises. understanding. construct loadings were strong.817.” “reporting on following and monitoring the industrial cluster project.” and “selecting enterprises to participate in the industrial cluster.” “having creating thinking for analyzing industrial cluster.” “having confidence for providing one’s own opinion.” “deep understanding of the concept of industrial cluster development.360 to 0.” “being enthusiastic for doing cluster’s activities.3).” “ability of planning workflow throughout the project. the absolute values are ranging from 0. The high correlated group of questions regarded “sufficient budget and human resources for running industrial cluster project.5).823.4). to translate.” and “responsibility for industrial cluster project. The high correlated group of questions regarded “considering overall benefit and needs of stakeholders. to provide consultancy.” 4) Clarity of goals Clarity of goal represented the level to which clarity of goals in order to make stakeholders understand the objective of industrial cluster project. As shown in appendix B (table B. The high correlated group of questions regarded “knowledge. and to implement during cluster mission.” 3) Perceived support Perceived support represented the level to which perceived support from government agencies to the industrial clusters.” . As shown in appendix B (table B. weaknesses.” “setting a controlling plan and well organized planning of implementation.463 to 0.824. to report. to manage.” 5) Ability of cluster members and policy implementers The ability of cluster members and policy implementers represented the level to which the ability of cluster members and policy implementers runs industrial cluster project. construct loadings were strong. As shown in appendix B (table B. and realization of the development on industrial cluster. which demonstrated a strong level of convergent validity. opportunities.” “time duration of experience for doing the industrial cluster.

enthusiastic reliability. the construct loadings were strong. The high correlated group of questions regarded “exchanging information among cluster members. and implementation. the measurement of the participation of stakeholders. ability of cluster members and policy implementers. As shown in appendix B (table B.” 8) Successful Implementation Successful implementation represented the level to which the result of implementation industrial cluster project was correspondent to the objectives of industrial cluster project.” 7) Quality of project Quality of project represented the level to which the quality of the project considered from views of cluster members/enterprises. such as allocated time.348 to 0.963. cautious caring. which demonstrated a strong level of convergent validity. clarity of goals. which demonstrated a strong level of convergent validity. communication. support.6). As shown in appendix B (table B.831. The high correlated group of questions regarded “satisfaction DIP officials who were responsible for the industrial cluster project in many dimensions. the construct loadings were strong.7).’ In conclusion.’ ‘understanding industrial cluster. the absolute values are from 0. the absolute values are ranging from 0. the absolute values are ranging from 0. the construct loadings were strong. support.” and “providing opinions regarding cluster implementation.3.’ ‘success in implementing activities.” “ability of understanding industrial cluster on expertise.’ ‘participation during implemented activities. As shown in appendix B (table B.114 6) Communication Communication represented the level to which communication transfers from one unit to another unit. . and quality of project in the successful implementation of the industrial cluster implementation in Thailand were valid and can be considered convergent in validity because the indicators or measurement variables had a value of factor loading greater than 0.351 to 0. which demonstrated a strong level of convergent validity.” “communication and information distribution among cluster members.’ ‘cooperation. management ability.924.” “exchanging technological spillover.8). concepts.’ and ‘promoting industrial cluster by cluster members.’ ‘promoting business.’ ‘joining industrial cluster and receiving benefits in return. The high correlated group of questions regarded ‘realization and agree upon the importance of domestic and international cluster. provided consultancy.341 to 0.

248 0.043 1. Therefore.173 0.2.073 0.115 5.440 -0.7 below (Leahy.003 -0. The way to solve such a problem is to take out the highly correlated independent variable.166 0.000 Note: Multicollinearity will reduce the estimation’s accuracy of the coefficient that occurred only in a positive correlation.037 0.000 QP -0. clarity of goals (CG). as illustrated in table 5.3 Multicollinearity The independent variables that were used to construct the model of successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand consisted of 7 variables: participation of stakeholders (PS).000 Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient (r) MA -0.093 1.078 0.356 0. Within the SEM approach.000 ACP -0.4 Model Assessment Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the hypothesized model.80) and did not generate a multicollinearity problem.000 SUP -0. perceived support (SUP).048 -0. management ability (MA). Table 5.7 Correlation Matrix of Independent Variables Independent Variables PS MA SUP CG ACP COM QP PS 1.000 COM 0. it was not necessary to take out any of the independent variables from the model analysis.085 1.066 1. communication (COM).277 0.029 1.108).048 0.056 0. 2001: 106 . the causal relationships in the proposed model were . ability of cluster members and policy implementers (ACP). multicollinearity will provide accurate estimation and will be more accurate as the negative correlation increases. 5.000 CG 0.2. quality of program (QP) with successful implementation (SI) exhibited a moderate positive correlation (r < 0. In the case of a negative correlation.114 -0.078 -0.342 1.

= = = Latent Variable Observed Variable Casual Relationship = Non-causal relationship The following variables were also used Table 5.8 Meaning of Variables Kind of Variables Abbreviation Observed Variable Observed Variable Observed Variable Observed Variable Observed Variable Observed Variable Observed Variable Latent Variable Observed Variable Observed Variable Error Variable PS MA SUP CG ACP COM QP SI EN EC e Meaning Participation of Stakeholders Management Ability Support Clarity of goal Ability of Cluster Members and Policy Implementers Communication Quality of program Successful Implementation Effectiveness Efficiency Error Variable (ecom. The model assessment for the dissertation applied Amos Version 6. een.0. The SEM will test causal relationships simultaneously in order to determine how well the model represented the data.116 represented by a series of structural equations. eqp. esi. eec) . The following symbols were also used.

0. NFI.36*** MA  COM 0.14 0.26*  SUP  ‐0.05 (P ≥ 0.987.38** EC EN Figure 5.125.290.43  0. which was the specified criterion. CMIN/DF =1. PS  0. The results of the model assessment on successful implementation of the industrial cluster implementation in Thailand by Amos Version 6. **P<0.031 *P<0. the model of successful . P = 0.90. df = 11. regarding the results of the model assessment of the successful implementation of the industrial cluster implementation in Thailand when considering the calculation on statistical values is found that the chi-square test did not have a statistically significant level at 0.05. which was approaching the value of “2. when considering the indices of the specified group or at 0. GFI = 0. and CFI) passed the criterias. Moreover. the indices of RMR and RMSEA also passed the criterias.2 below. RMSEA = 0. AGFI.01 According to figure 5. Regarding the indices which were specified below 0.2 The Results of the Hypothesized Model of Successful Implementation of the Industrial Cluster in Thailand Note: Chi-square =13.03      SI      0.2.05.66*** QP 0.0 are shown in Figure 5. it was found that all of the indices (GFI.208.07 0.” Therefore.17** 0.06 CG  0.05). the CMIN/DF index had a value of 1. ***P<0. IFI. the following model was framed and developed.41**  0. Moreover.10. The 11 hypotheses stated that the proposed model fit well with the empirical data and could be analyzed by Amos Version 6.208.117 1) The Hypothesized Model to be Tested Based on the literature review.25* ACP  0.33** 0.

90 ≥ 0. AGFI (Adjust Goodness of Fit Index) 5. RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation) Criteria P ≥ 0.90 0. shown in Table 5. GFI (Comparative Fit Index) 4.948 ≥ 0.990 0. CFI (Comparative Fit Index) 8. CMIN/DF (Chi-square statistical comparison of the tested model and the independent model with the saturated mode) 3.9 The Overall Model Fit Indices Indices 1. RMR (Root Mean Square Residual) 9.90 0.05 Conclusion: The Causal Model of Successful Industrial Cluster Implementation in Thailand Fit Well with the Empirical Data.031 ≥ 0.988 0. NFI (Normed Fit Index) 6.16.90 < 0. with empirical data is. Chi-square 2.118 implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand.943 0.05 < 0.90 ≥ 0.05 Statistic values 0. Table 5.208 ≥ 0. IFI (Incremental Fit Index) 7.015 0.987 0. .275 <2 1.

P = 0.66*** CG  0. this does not mean that the rest of the causal relationships that appear in figure 5.01 Figure 5.25* ACP  QP      SI  Figure 5. However.3 above illustrates only the causal relationships that had significant value (p-value) in statistical evidence. 0. ***P<0. those causal relationships are not proper for being taken into account. RMSEA = 0.119 According to figure 5.3 due to unqualified statistical evidence are not factors affecting successful implementation of industrial cluster policy. GFI = 0.33** 0.987. **P<0.41**  0.17** 0. they confirmed that the conceptual model was able to analyze by SEM. df = 11.125.3 below represents only the causal relationships that were supportive by statistical evidence.05. .26*  SUP  0.031 *P<0.8. CMIN/DF =1.290.10. Figure 5.3 The Causal Relationships of Supportive Hypotheses Note: Chi-square =13.2 but they do not appear in figure 5.36*** MA  COM 0.2 and table 5.208. But for this case and period of time for study.

307 0.099 0.143 0.254 0.012 0.062 Note: *P < 0.705* 2.028 0.102 1.406 0.R/t-distribution > 1.242** 2.071 0.9 above.05. path coefficient = 0.406). 5.120 Table 5.000 0. 0.96) ***P < 0.10 Causal Relationships of a Successful Implementation Model Path Coefficient Factors COM QP QP QP SI SI SI SI SI SI SI EN EC <--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--MA SUP CG ACP COM QP PS MA SUP CG ACP SI SI b 0.R/t-distribution > 2. Management .183 0.089 0.054 Beta 0. path coefficient = 0.066 0.356).021 1.477** 0.05 (C.137 0.01 (C.385 2.470** 0. path coefficient = 0.099 0.01.097 2.2) in order to determine the interrelationships between the variables.073 0.857 0.334 0.R/t-distribution > 1.10 (C.E.088 0.014 C.258 0.394 0.01.661 -0.042 0. Management ability had a direct effect on communication regarding industrial cluster implementation in Thailand (p < 0.057 0.000 0.58) In table 5.428 0.272 0.R.296 S. path coefficient = 0.865* P 0.084 0.109 0.758*** 1.120 0.219 0.374 -0.066 0.05.642*** -0.013 0.852 1. It was found that the quality of the project had the highest direct effect on successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand (p < 0.661).200 0.64) **P < 0.166 0.073 0.180 4.732 0.502** 1.356 -0.025 0. Support had a direct effect on successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand (p< 0. Clarity of goal also had a direct effect on successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand (p < 0.334).140 0. a path-coefficient analysis was carried out in accordance with the causal relationships shown in the path diagram (Figure 5.070 0.000 0.013 0.148 0.

Finally.05. path coefficient = 0.9%. it was found that effectiveness and efficiency had factor loadings regarding the successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand equal to 0.036 0.166).1.10 below. the coefficient of determination was used to indicate the validity of the model ranging between 0 . Furthermore. Table 5. and the ability of cluster members and policy implementers had a direct effect on the quality of the program in industrial cluster implementation in Thailand (p < 0. path coefficient = 0.959*100).428 and 0. path coefficient = 0.385.254).  Square multiple correlation or R2 shows the validity of the model.258). The analysis revealed that successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand could be explained very well by the model since R2 equalled 95.121 ability had a direct effect on successful the implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand (p < 0. The ability of cluster members and policy implementers had a direct effect on the successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand (p < 0. (0. If R2 was closer to 1. Joreskog and Sorbom (1993: 26) suggest that a good model should have a coefficient of determination ≥ 40%. as illustrated in table 5.11 Coefficient of Determination of a Successful Implementation Model Squared Multiple Correlations (R2) 0.10. which gave R2 as the square of the correlation coefficient between the original and modeled data values. respectively.959 Dependent Variables COM QP SI 2) Testing of Direct and Indirect Effects Referring to the path coefficient indices. The coefficient of determination R2 was obtained by ordinary least squares regression. the model indicated the goodness of fit of a model.10. the total effects could be ranked from the highest effect as follows: 1) quality of project had effects on the successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand (path coefficient = . respectively.127 0.

454 ACP 0.296. Table 5.258 0.959 .000 0.000 0.661 0. direct effect = 0.000 0.028 QP 0.000 0.268 Dependent Variables SUP 0.000 -0.661*** QP.661). 4) support had effects on the successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand (path coefficient =0.166** ACP.356 0.254 0. it was necessary to determine the standardized total effect. indirect effect = -0.028 COM +0.038 0. direct effect = 0.000 0.010).356).010 0.048). respectively.143 0.11below.057 0.109 0. To analyze the direct and indirect effects.000 0.356 0.000 0.073 0.000 0.000 0.661 Consequently.000 0.000 0.057 SUP + 0. direct effect = 0. the structural equation modeling (SEM) can be proposed as: COM = 0.406.000 -0.363* ACP+0. indirect effect = 0. direct effect = 0.363 COM 0.000 0.000 0. 3) management ability had effects on communication regarding industrial cluster implementation in Thailand (path coefficient =0.356.000 0.000 0. 2) clarity of goal had effects on the successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand (path coefficient =0. R2 = 0.406 0. and 5) management ability had effects on the successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand (path coefficient =0.057 0.000 0.268* MA +0.166 0.000 0. R2 = 0.334.000 0.036 = 0.127 QP SI = -0.296** SUP+0. R2 = 0. direct effect and indirect effect. as they appear in table 5.000 0.038).073 CG +0. direct effect = 0.000 0.356*** MA.000 0.000 0.143 PS +0.454** CG +0.000 0.000 0.028 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.12 Direct and Indirect Effect Matrix Independent Variables COM DE IE TE QP DE IE TE SI DE IE TE Effect PS 0.268.454.000 0.143 MA 0.000 0.000 0.073 0.000 0.048 0.122 0. indirect effect = 0.661.296 CG 0.166 0.334 -0.000 0.000 0.000 0.258.

However. The results of the hypothesis testing at a statistical significance of 0. management ability. which clarified that communication did not affect successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand. which clarified that the participation of stakeholders did not effect successful implementation of the industrial cluster in The hypothesis was not 0. the most impact on successful implementation was the quality of the project since the path coefficient of quality of project had the highest value (equals to 0. . The hypothesis was not supportable. and the ability of cluster members and policy implementers were influential regarding successful implementation as well.5 Testing of Research Hypotheses The hypotheses were tested by using the SEM technique.123 The structural equation modeling on successful implementation above indicates that all dependent variables were positively correlated with successful implementation since all path coefficients had positive signs. 5. The results of the hypothesis testing are presented below: H 1. perceived support.1 Participation of stakeholders has an effect on the successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand.05 showed that the participation of stakeholders had no effect on successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand (p Thailand. communication had no effect on successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand.2.05). In conclusion. the participation of stakeholders had no effect on successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand.05 showed that communication had no effect on successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand (p ≥ ≥ 0. The results of the hypothesis testing at a statistical significance of 0. In conclusion.01 level. clarity of goal. H 1.661) with a statistical significance at the 0.2 Communication has an effect on the successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand.05). In addition. supported.

05 showed that clarity of goals had a direct effect on successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand (p < 0. which provided a path coefficient = 0. In conclusion. perceived support has an effect on the Successful Implementation of the Industrial Cluster in Thailand.10). which provided a path coefficient = 0. The results of the hypothesis testing at a statistical significance of 0.124 H 1. which provided a path coefficient = 0.4 Perceived support has an effect on the successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand.10 showed that perceived support had a direct effect on successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand (p < 0. which provided a path coefficient = 0. The hypothesis was supportable.258.10). In conclusion.3 Management ability has an effect on the successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand. In conclusion. H 1. This . This explains that a high quality program in industrial cluster implementation in Thailand will also increase successful implementation.05).661. the quality of the project has an effect on successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand. H 1. This explains that the higher perceived support of industrial cluster implementation in Thailand will also increase successful implementation.05). management ability has an effect on the successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand.05 showed that quality of project had a direct effect on successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand (p < 0. The hypothesis was supportable. This explains that the higher management ability of industrial cluster implementation in Thailand will also increase successful implementation. The hypothesis was supportable. The results of the hypothesis testing at a statistical significance of 0. The results of the hypothesis testing at a statistical significance of 0.6 Clarity of goals has an effect on the successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand.334.406. H 1. The results of the hypothesis testing at a statistical significance of 0.5 Quality of project has an effect on successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand.05 showed that management ability had a direct effect on successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand (p < 0.

.05 showed that perceived support had no effect on the quality of the program in industrial cluster implementation in Thailand (p ≥ 0.356. IE= 0.109).125 explains that having clear goals in industrial cluster implementation in Thailand will also increase successful implementation. In conclusion. The hypothesis was supportable. In conclusion. In conclusion. management ability had an effect on communication in industrial cluster implementation in Thailand. The results of the hypothesis testing at a statistical significance of 0. The hypothesis was supportable. H 1. The results of the hypothesis testing at a statistical significance of 0.05 showed that the ability of cluster members and policy implementers had a direct and indirect effect on the successful implementation of quality of project of industrial cluster implementation in Thailand (p < 0.7 Ability of cluster members and policy implementers has an effect on the successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand. H 3. which provided a path coefficient = 0. which provided a path coefficient = 0. This explains that a higher ability of cluster members and policy implementers in industrial cluster implementation in Thailand will also increase successful implementation.01 showed that management ability had a direct effect on communication in industrial cluster implementation in Thailand (p < 0. H 2. the ability of cluster members and policy implementers had an effect on the successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand. clarity of goals has an effect on successful implementation of industrial cluster implementation in Thailand.05).1 Management ability has an effect on communication in industrial cluster implementation in Thailand. The results of the hypothesis testing at a statistical significance of 0.1 Perceived support has an effect on the quality of project in industrial cluster implementation in Thailand. The hypothesis was supported. which clarified that perceived support did not affect the quality of the project in industrial cluster implementation in Thailand.363 (DE = 0.01). This explains that the higher management ability of industrial cluster implementation in Thailand will also increase the quality of communication.254.10).

13 Summary of Results of Hypothesis Testing Hypotheses H 1. clarity of goals had no effect on the quality of the program in industrial cluster implementation in Thailand. Support/ Not Support Not Support Effect - Not Support - .116. Therefore. The result of the hypothesis testing at the statistical significance of 0.1 Participation of Stakeholders has an effect on the successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand.3 Ability of cluster members and policy implementers has an effect on the quality of project in industrial cluster implementation in Thailand.05). H 3. H 3. the hypothesis was supportable.05 showed that the ability of cluster members and policy implementers had a direct effect on the quality of the project in industrial cluster implementation in Thailand (p < 0.05). which provided a path coefficient = 0. In conclusion. which clarified that the clarity of goals did not affect the quality of the program in industrial cluster implementation in Thailand.2 Communication has an effect on the successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand. This explains that the higher ability of cluster members and policy implementers in industrial cluster implementation in Thailand will also increase the quality of a project. Table 5.05 showed that clarity of goals had no effect on the quality of the program in industrial cluster implementation in Thailand (p ≥ 0.126 In conclusion. In conclusion. H 1. The hypothesis was not supportable.2 Clarity of goals has an effect on the quality of project in industrial cluster implementation in Thailand. perceived support had no effect on the quality of the program in industrial cluster implementation in Thailand. the ability of cluster members and policy implementers had an effect on the quality of the program in industrial cluster implementation in Thailand. The results of the hypothesis testing at a statistical significance of 0. The hypothesis was not supportable.

109 Not Support Not Support Support DE = 0.5 Quality of project has an effect on the successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand. H 3.258 Support Support Support Support DE = 0.363 DE = 0.13 (Continued) Hypotheses H 1.4 Support has an effect on the successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand.7 Ability of cluster members and policy implementers has an effect on the successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand.3 Management ability has an effect on the successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand. H 1. Thailand.   Support/ Not Support Support Effect DE = 0.2 Clarity of goals has an effect on the quality of the project in industrial cluster implementation in Thailand.334 DE = 0.6 Clarity of goals has an effect on the successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand.116 .1 Support has an effect on the quality of the project in industrial cluster implementation in Thailand.254 IE = 0. H 3.3 Ability of cluster members and policy implementers has an effect on the quality of the project in industrial cluster implementation in Thailand. H 1. H 1.127 Table 5. H 1.661 DE = 0. H 3.406 TE = 0.

the author applied the industrial cluster concept in internal and external of Thailand. Chandarasorn (1993) in six policy implementation models. This dissertation on the study of the factors contributing to the success of industrial cluster implementation in Thailand has three objectives as follows: 1) to study the criteria of effectiveness and efficiency of the industrial cluster. Moreover. The population as at the individual level. In order to complete the study. and 3) to offer suggestions for improving the implementation of the industrial cluster. etc. the author went deeply into the study of the Thai industrial policy initiated historically by the Thai government in order to better understand Thai industrial evolution policy as well as the experiences of implementing industrial clusters in various countries. Policy implementation models are from various popular scholars such as Van Meter and Van Horn (1975) in a model of intergovernmental policy implementation. Also. the author considered the appropriation of policy implementation models for the adaptability in order to use for the study. The usefulness of the findings means the improvement of policy implementation. The study covered 22 industrial clusters implemented by the Department of Industrial Promotion (DIP) in fiscal year 2007. Sabatier and Mazmanian (1980) in a top-down model.CHAPTER 6 INTERPRETATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS This chapter concerns the findings from the statistical analysis of data from the clusters members of Department of Industrial Promotion (DIP) in Thailand. including . The total population was 220 (10 respondents per industrial cluster. The author took selected questions that corresponded to the author’s conceptual framework from questionnaires in the DIP’s database. These 22 industrial clusters were dispersed throughout every region of the country. with cluster members that had joined 22 industrial cluster project. 2) to identify the factors that lead to industrial cluster implementation in Thailand from an implementation perspective. Edward (1980) in representing factors affect to policy implementation.

and Mrs. Joint R&D helps to share . the author used content validity by asking for recommendations from two industrial cluster experts at the DIP: Mrs. Correspondent to the motive of enterprises. Through research and development (R&D) cooperation. where most participating enterprises do not have enough funds or resources to have their own R&D. enterprises. sometimes questions emerged in the contrast of the author’s opinion while conducting the literature review. 6.1. Yuparat Satawiriya). The author also found that content validity was very useful for the study since some theories found from other studies in similar cases might be different from the findings of this study. and the second part will cover the results of applying statistical instruments to the test of the author’s conceptual framework. Uraiwan Chantarayu. Bidault and Fischer (1994) claim that technology can make enterprises “buy time” and be more likely to realize a first mover advantage in the market. so that they join industrial clusters.1 Interpretations of the Research The study mainly used the quantitative method to obtain the results of the study analysis. However. studying all those answered questionnaire. have the expectation on having new technological knowledge and the know-how of other enterprises. the first part will be summarize and discussed in what the author found in the descriptive analysis. explaining of what the author found in results after testing conceptual framework and the outcome of the some result was contrast to what the author believed. 6. There were some raising questions while conducting the dissertation.1 Interpretations of Descriptive Data The main motives for enterprises to participate in industrial clusters are technological base and the market channel. they may increase their innovative potential and develop new products and processes more quickly. mostly small size SMEs.129 the conceptual model of the cluster for enhancing understanding of creating the author’s own conceptual framework. In terms of the technological-based motivation. Nueno and Osterveld (1988) state that the combination of the technological knowledge of different parties can also lead to improvement in the quality of the innovation process. The conclusion of the research can be classified into two parts.

it will have more attention from enterprises. sometimes the cluster members face a conflict of interests. 6. lack of commitment. enterprises need to know more about market strategy. 6. and 4) the vertical dimension.1. but they did not have enough of their desired market channel since their products were not differentiated from their competitors and the prices were not attractive. through technological based.1.1. main producers. the cluster members who are in the same or similar industry may need the same technology base but they ignore the transfer of technology to others since they always consider that they are competitors in the . and users in a value chain of a certain product).1.1 In terms of the market channel. most enterprises that are DIP cluster members have a lack of understanding of marketing strategy.2 In terms of arising problems for the industrial cluster. DIP officials try to seek new market channels by demonstrating their products in various exhibitions. activities are served to assist in seeking new markets. The author found that the unwanted knowledge came from two dimensions: the horizontal dimension (competitors in the product market) and the vertical dimension (suppliers. The author found that enterprises could produce products. However. and after the courses end or in between the training period.130 fixed costs and improve the efficiency of the innovation process. Therefore. enterprises can extend their economy of scale and scope. Therefore. and time loss. DIP officials that are responsible for the industrial cluster agree with the importance of enhancing R&D so they have employed such intensive courses as leaning in order to reduce production costs to enterprises. 1) Unwanted knowledge transfer Porter (1997) mentions that the cluster mapping concept suggests a multidimensional approach that combines various dimensions: 1) the geographical dimension 2) the institutional dimension 3) the horizontal dimension. In both dimensions. For the horizontal dimension. enterprises mostly meet managerial problems such as unwanted knowledge transfer. Those can be explained in more detail as follows. In order to obtain greater demand on the part of the customer. enterprises are more interested if participation in the industrial cluster helps them to have more market access. DIP officials that are responsible for a project understand the need on seeking new market channel of the enterprises so they create training course in marketing for enterprises.

Overall. they will have less time to do their own business. including descriptive statistics. and time loss. there were 22 respondents (each person represented the answer for his group). if they spend time for such activities. Some of them will do what they commit to only when they are free from their business. minimizing these three problems. To form the industrial cluster. exploratory factor analysis (EFA) for testing validity by considering the KMO and Barlett’s Test of Sphericity. For this problem.1. Since the data used for analysis were secondary data. the author used Z-scores for standardization technique for standardized scores (Kanlaya Vanichbuncha. On the other hand. Therefore. 2004). Some data were collected at the group level.2 Interpretations of Data Analysis from Statistical Results The author tested the conceptual framework by using several techniques. For the vertical dimension. therefore. and joining cluster activities. 6. However. Enterprises that are cluster members are SMEs. and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). the author applied the principle of “disaggregate regression” to adjust a higher level of variable to a lower . to solve this problem. lack of commitment. discussions. To produce quality product with a competitive price has better chance for exploring new market channels. Therefore. including unwanted knowledge transfer. DIP needs to ask enterprises to pay minimal expenses. DIP officials believe that participation from enterprises by sharing costs will make for a sustainable cluster. 2) Lack of commitment The industrial cluster does not have a legal contract so that sometimes enterprises promise to do things and fail to do what they promise. Those secondary data is in various levels of Likert scale. 3) Time loss Time loss refers to lost time during activities: meetings. and they have to take care of their business by themselves. the cluster members are in different lines of production so that the needs of knowledge transfer are different. require time for enterprises to have a period to adjust themselves and to be more open-minded. the value of the Cronbach alpha for testing reliability.131 market. participation in some training courses. it cannot be denied that technological base and the market channel have to go together. they have to divide their work.

the author tested variables that were appropriate for measuring the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) by analysis of the value of the KMO and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity. The results of the evaluation of the EFA showed that all information through the constructs could be used in the quantitative analysis. the author used the “content validity” technique by interview industrial cluster experts in order to have a better concept of the results of the data analysis. H 7 (1. .3) Management ability has an effect on the successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand.1) Participation of stakeholders has an effect on the successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand. The author set 11 hypotheses for study as follows: H 1 (1. H 6 (1. H 3 (1.2) Communication has an effect on the successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand. H 5 (1. H 9 (3.1) Perceived support has an effect on the quality of project in industrial cluster implementation in Thailand. 2009). the test results had to prove that the model fit and passed all needed indices so that structure equation modeling could be used for analyzing the author’s conceptual framework. H 4 (1.5) Quality of project has an effect on successful implementation. The result showed that the value of the KMO and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity passed the criterias.4) Perceived support has an effect on the successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand.132 level. H 8 (2.6) Clarity of goals has and effect on the successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand. Moreover. In addition.1) Management ability has effect on communication in industrial cluster implementation in Thailand. H 2 (1.7) The ability of cluster members and policy implementers has an effect on the successful implementation of the industrial cluster in Thailand. and the result will cause every variable is in the same level of variable (Numchai Suppareakchaisakul. As concerns the test of the hypotheses.

and quality of project. However. with a path coefficient = 0. H 5 (1. This also implies that quality of project was a very influential variable affecting successful implementation.7). and communication. However. H 6 (1.2) Clarity of goals has an effect on the quality of project in industrial cluster implementation in Thailand. further. those variables will have to be taken into account. 6. H 7 (1. The author still believes that if clusters are in the growing period. H 4 (1. clarity of goals. If the entire model of the study is considered regarding the factors contributing to the success of industrial cluster implementation in Thailand. the period of stud was at the start-up period of developing the industrial cluster.9%. such as participation of stakeholders.01.1 Interaction of positive relationships between participation of stakeholders and successful implementation Even though Ketels (2003) and the European Commission (2006) state that the participation of stakeholders has a positive effect on successful implementation. H 11 (3. the ability of cluster members and policy implementation exhibited both a direct and indirect effect (past quality of project) on successful implementation.3).4). The results illustrate that the major factors that determine the successful implementation of Thailand are perceived support. for the rest of the variables. management ability. most of the reviews were from abroad and they do not represent the same experience as in Thailand.66 and p-value < 0.133 H 10 (3. the author found in the literature reviews of famous scholars that they were also key factors that led to successful implementation. and H 11 (3. Joreskog and Sorbom (1993: 26) suggest that a good model should have a coefficient of determination equal to or greater than 40%. Interestingly.6). as . ability of cluster members and policy implementation.2. However. this does not mean that unsupported hypotheses were insignificant but that there were reasons behind that. the overall model indicates the relatively high goodness of fit of the model since R2 equals 95.3).1. In fact. the results from the structural equation modeling supported six Hypotheses: H 3 (1.3) The ability of cluster members and policy implementers has an effect on the quality of project in industrial cluster implementation in Thailand.5). so those variables may not have been so influential as the beginning stage.

the results corresponded to the statistical evidence (p-value < 0. and a model of inter-governmental policy implementation (Van Meter and Van Horn. According to the reviews. On the other hand. the industrial clusters would have faster development in implementing the cluster.10). and some said that they came for shopping around.1. they came to serve their notice and disappeared. they did not pay a hundred percent attention to sincerely participating. This implies that management ability and successful implementation have a positive relationship and management ability has a direct influence on successful implementation. 1975).2 Interaction of positive relationships between management ability and successful implementation Bardach (1977) and Edward (1980) state that the important part of implementing policy in the administration process includes the expanding of management ability in applying measures and regulations efficiently. The author studied deeply in details and discovered if DIP officials strictly followed to measurements and regulations of cluster procedures.134 mentioned in the same content as appeared in the organization development model (Voradej Chandarasorn. 1984). path coefficient = 0. the author believes that these two variables will have a strong positive causal relationship with statistical significance. However. All of the scholars mentioned above claimed a positive relationship between the two variables in general cases. 6. At the very first of opening of the project. the author went further by interviewing and observing people in the real practice of the industrial cluster implemented by the DIP and sought a solution in order to answer the question “why?” What the author found out was that the industrial cluster in Thailand was a new concept for stakeholders during that period (fiscal year 2007) so many of stakeholders did not see the benefits of having an industrial cluster. it proved that what the author found out was true since the numbers of participants during the very first starting period as higher than when the project had been started for a while. if takes this time of this period for studying with external environment in normal situation. the result of the model indicated that both variables (participation of stakeholders and successful implementation) had no positive relationship without a statistically significant level (p-value ≥ 0. Thus.2.26). This does not mean that the statements by scholars were wrong but that industrial implementation in Thailand is a particular case. As seen in the collected data from the DIP. therefore.10. .

41. those policy standards and goals should have clear directives and should provide a structure implementation process that supports methods for the proper policy implementation. should be easily measurable. the amount needed depends on the financial status of that industrial cluster.3 Interaction of the positive relationships between perceived support and successful implementation Van Meter and Van Horn (1975) stated that the size of the agency staff was a major factor to make organizational capacity to implement policy as well as some other needed resources.135 6. such as the expenses for the administrative office and other needed activities.05 and path coefficient = 0. This statement refers to the ability of policy implementers to overcome any obstacles .2. This was parallel to what the author found out.2.2. To assist with government funding is still needed for every industrial cluster at every development stage.33. Thus. such as government funds and other financial resources supplied to policy programs for facilitating program implementation.1. Van Meter and Van Horn (1975) mentioned that successful implementation is a function of the implementing organization’s capability to do what is required of it.5 Interaction of positive relationships of ability of cluster members and policy implementers regarding successful implementation The key effect of leading policy implementation to be a success cannot deny that the ability of cluster members and policy implementers should be taken into account. Industrial clusters will absolutely fail if they have no supporting budget at the beginning stage since it is difficult to look for cooperation if enterprises still do not see the benefit. policy standards and goals.1.1.05. 6. However. 6. As a statistical result. The statistical results prove that clarity of goals has a strong positive effect on successful implementation with a p-value < 0. perceived support as positively influential on successful implementation with a p-value < 0. Van Meter and Van Horn (1975) claimed that both terms.4 Interaction of positive relationships between clarity of goals and successful implementation Clarity of goals can refer to unambiguous policy standards and goals. clarity of goals cannot refuse to count as an important factor in creating successful implementation. that industrial clusters needed certain financial funds to run their activities. and a path coefficient = 0. According to them.

In this case. According to the DIP’s experience with the communication factor in the industrial cluster project.25) insures that the ability of cluster members and policy implementers has a positive effect on successful implementation. it illustrates that the causal relationships between two variables are not proven by statistical evidence. Concerning statistical evidence (p-value ≥ 0. the author believes that communication and successful implementation really do have a positive causal relationship. and cognition and understanding of what procedures make the project reach goals.136 in implementing the project. 6. However. level of education.2.1. In this sense.10. however.7 Interaction of positive relationships between quality of project and successful implementation Regarding the quality of projects. With their idea. open communication was discovered to be an important factor affecting successful implementation. it was found that the ability of both cluster members and policy implementers was one of the key success factors in making an industrial cluster project a success. This can be applicable to measuring the quality of a project since the completed structure of an industrial cluster as appearing in cluster mapping does not seem to be . 6. Elmore (1979) has stressed that the complexity of the function of both the absolute number of actors and the number of transactions between them which is required to accomplished a given task. what the DIP found differs from the reviewed literature. because not all information transmitted from one unit to another is frequent enough to make that information benefit what the individual were doing in the process. statistical evidence (p-value < 0. it was found that good communication sometimes may not cause a high level of successful implementation. further studies have to widely prove this factor. the organization’s capability can extend to that the ability of cluster members is another parallel factor to accelerate the faster of successful implementation.10).2. In the real practice of the DIP. Ability can refer to related work experience. it is agreed that successful implementation influences successful implementation.6 Interaction of positive relationships between communication and successful implementation In Van Meter and Van Horn (1975). Greater non-argumentative communication is more likely to lead to a greater degree of successful implementation. path coefficient = 0.1.

this reconfirms that the quality of a project has a positive relationship with successful implementation. the study can be done by making a comparison between “actual results” and “planned results. the author used two criteria to determine the successful implementation of the industrial cluster.01.2. 6. The BCR in the industrial cluster project in fiscal year 2007 equaled 1. 1991). so that the project results in the highest outcome compared to a certain budget.4 Therefore. According to the review of the literature and strong statistical evidence (p-value < 0. planning.137 complex but the components of it have what industrial cluster should have in order to accomplish the goals of implementing the cluster.2. Effectiveness can be measured by two methods: 1) The goal-attainment approach is the method of measuring the outcome at the end of project implementation. Measuring efficiency can be done by considering the output of actual implementation and whether the budget has been used. He recommended that successful implementation can be extended by fulfilling 2 criteria: 6.2 Efficiency In terms of economics. 2) The systems approach is the consideration of a project as to whether the outcome covers from the beginning to the end (Thougchai Santiwong. not measuring between each step of implementation.66).1 Effectiveness Effectiveness is the ability to fulfill the objective of policy.2 Criteria of Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Industrial Cluster In this dissertation. measure. efficiency is the ability to obtain maximum output under given costs or given outputs with minimum costs. the results of the overall industrial clusters indicated that . path coefficient = 0. Efficiency can also be measured by the benefit-cost ratio (BCR). as mentioned in Patton (1979). By using the effectiveness criteria. 6. or project. that project is the most efficient.

Porter (1997). 6. Thus. not just a project. The implication for success is to be more manageable in the interest of different cluster members/enterprises in . In reality. First. It seems that the development of the DIP industrial cluster tended to be “issue-oriented” and focused on “response” so that the implementation of the industrial cluster by the DIP was misleading concerning the complex and dynamic aspect of the cluster concept.3 Suggestions 6.” Second.3. The industrial cluster involves interdependent actors. cluster initiatives seem to be more successful if they are based on a shared conceptual framework of competitiveness. the DIP treated the development of the industrial cluster as a “project” with the objective of having a finite time span for implementation and to give highest priority to quickly meet targets and measurable outcomes. and interactions among key actors in clusters are crucial to the success of cluster policy. The cluster implementation by the DIP has started to formulate industrial cluster project since industrial cluster has been considered the popular issue by popularized scholar: Michael E. Better policy formulation will lead to better policy choice and better implementation.138 industrial cluster implementation passed the criterion of efficiency because it was greater than 1. recommendations for better industrial cluster performance by the DIP can be made as follows. the lack of a broad consensus about the drivers of economic performance turns out to be the factor most strongly associated with the failure of cluster initiatives. The recommendations for the DIP to develop a more successful industrial cluster regarded emphasizing the “cluster process” rather than the “cluster project.1 Suggestions for the Department of Industrial Promotion (DIP) Referring to the literature review and to the study of researchers. it leads the Thai government to apply the sense of initiative cluster is for enhancing Thai competitiveness in the world. the author found that the process of formulating cluster policy was crucial to effective policy implementation. With Porter’s issue. The DIP needs to consider that industrial cluster development is a complex and continuous development process.

The result is to make DIP officials demonstrate the successful development of the industrial cluster since they will be able to understand not merely “what” strategy should be applied but also “when” strategy should be implemented. Activating clusters seems to be more successful if it is part of a broader strategy to improve the microeconomic business environment in a particular region or country. the answer was that DIP officials. the government seems to have a positive role in providing an operational budget. motivations. Fourth. The implementation of industrial cluster development should take into account paying more attention to “right time” and to “sequence. it was found that a cluster seems to be more successful if it focuses on a cluster already strong and set in a location with a good business environment (Ketels. so there are differences in interests. and capabilities were related to be a partial scope in psychological thought of implementing a policy. Third. the strong support of the successful industrial cluster is that the cluster needs at least a small operational budget to finance its administrative cost with a dedicated “cluster facilitator” or “cluster development agent (CDA). The terms of understanding rationales. As long as cluster members or enterprises are heavily involved in the governance of cluster initiative. in order to select an industrial cluster to develop from the empirical statistics. DIP should pay more attention to understanding the rationales. It is interesting that no negative effect of government financing for supporting a project as found. This implies? that the sharing of the conceptual framework of competitiveness from the point of view of cluster members and the DIP will be needed to realize successful implementation. many times. 2003).” . the DIP should focus firstly on the selective activation of clusters rather than on doubtful future clusters. Frequently.139 the cluster. cluster initiatives are very difficult to sustain over time. Therefore. Enterprises tend to be more interested in productivity growth and innovation. motivations.” If such a resource is not available. and capabilities of each player in the industrial cluster. considered a popularized strategy in making a policy a success but discarded about appropriate period of time of policy implementation. by interviewing cluster members or enterprises. including the support for the analytical results in this dissertation. while government tends to be more interested in job creation than higher productivity. Fifth.

etc. textiles. 6. the author believes that the levels of understanding and conceptual ideas in answering the questionnaire were different and this may have caused the answers to be not really what they wanted to answer. by donating their excess products from an order to the cluster and selling them and collecting revenue for the cluster. The heart of the important industrial concept is to create reliability among enterprises in order to bring down “the wall” of distrusting each other. the educational levels of cluster members/enterprises that answered the questionnaire were widely different since the industrial clusters were composed of various industrial sectors such as agriculture. However. the industrial cluster should have its own budget to pay for cluster activity costs. the backgrounds of cluster members are very different.4 Limitations of the Research First. enterprises have to encourage cluster members to share their goals and interests in order to make them have the feeling of participation and that the cluster belongs to them so that they will be more willing to cooperate in cluster activities.140 6.D. furniture. regarding good management in terms of administration and financial arrangement. Different industrial clusters have different technology. good management in terms of administration cannot be overlooked since good cooperation requires good internal administration in the cluster as a fundamental stage.2 Suggestions for Enterprises Based on the study and the recommendations of Hulshoff and Snel (1998). etc. therefore. Therefore.3. Educational levels of cluster members/enterprises are from the Ph. and knowledge-base. level to the level of individuals with little or no education. . Second. with reference to information received for the data analysis dimension. processed food. in terms of shared goals or interests of the co-operative efforts. the author synthesized the important tools that lead to successful industrial cluster implementation as follows: First. investment. The author noticed that highly developed industrial clusters tend to look for revenue for their clusters by sharing a percentage of the selling volume that can be seen from cluster to cluster.

6. the concept of the cluster in Thailand has been implemented for a sufficient time period for the study of the factors that influence its development at different stages. the results of the industrial cluster analysis can be applied to the beneficial use only in developing countries. however. Different levels of countries’ development mostly come with a different nature of thinking. One of the significant factors in making cluster policy a success is the cooperation from stakeholders. The starting point of cluster development and will develop to be the second stage . in cooperation with clusters which are developed independently. psychological understanding needs to be considered in order to achieve good correspondence. Currently. the author obtained the results of the factors that affected the industrial cluster in general since the industrial cluster in Thailand is at the beginning stage of development. the author emphasized dealing with the characteristics of the industrial cluster.” a basis for industrial clusters.5 Recommendations for Further Research In the dissertation. However. the factors affecting the successful implementation of the industrial cluster project. The details are illustrated in table 6. Table 6.1 Different Stages of Cluster Development METI (2005a) 1st Stage Start-up period (1st-5th year) Porter (1998a) The established or embryonic cluster Form the “network where each face is visible. therefore.1 below. and providing recommendations to related parties so that they can cooperate and make the industrial cluster project more successful. METI (2005a) and Porter (1998a) have classified cluster development stages into 3 and 4 stages.141 Second. they may not be appropriate for developed countries.

A declining cluster can possibly be reinvented and enter into a new lifecycle. experience growth anymore Source: METI (2005a). At the same time. The mature cluster Networking and development of specific businesses Stable but might not are further promoted.142 Table 6. 3rd Stage Self-sustaining period (11th-15th year) Porter (1998a) The growth cluster There is a room for growth. . Financial independence of industrial cluster activities is encouraged. Porter (1998a) Therefore. management innovation of companies and the creation of ventures are promoted.1 (Continued) METI (2005a) 2nd Stage Growth period (6th-10th year) Networking promotion is continued and specific businesses are developed. future research could be conducted in terms of studying the key success factors in implementing the industrial cluster at different stages. 4th Stage None The declining cluster Failing growth.

4 (February): 403-426.: Wadsworth Thomsom Learning. AMOS User’ s Guide. Administrative Science Quarterly. J. R & D Management. Chicago: Small Waters Corporation. 1985. Bardach. Anderson. K.A. Francis and Fischer. C. Bogo. Paul and Gerstein. 24. Technology Transactions: Networks Over Markets. Journal of Teaching in Social Work. . The Practice of Social Research. Psychological Bulletin. 1979. Athwell. 1977. 1995. Kenneth J. 1975. W. C. 1995. April. 1989. American Sociological Review. The Implementation Game: What Happen after a Bill Becomes a Law. (April): 311-327. Babbie. and Gerbing. From Idea to Action: Note for a Contingency Theory of Policy Implementation Process. E. R. Creating Effective University–Field Partnerships: An Analysis of Two Inter-Organization Models for Field Education. Bidault. The Interorganizational Network as a Political Economy. Marion and Globerman. Dean R. Federal Programs Supporting Educational Change: Factors Affecting Implementation and Continuation. Government Policy and Local Practice.BIBLIOGRAPHY Alexander. 1 (January): 33-45. Innovations Through Alliances: Expectations and Limitations. R&D Management. D. 1994. 20 (June): 229–248. E. Benson. Bidault.A. Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach. Administration and Society. and Cummings. J. E. R.: The Rand Corporation. 24. William A. Bollen. 1988. 9th ed. Berman. 103 (3): 411–423. C. A. 1994. 2004. Arbuckle. J. 4 (October): 373–386. Structure Equations with Latent Variables. Belmont. T. 16. 11 (1–2): 179–192. F. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Cambridge and London: The MIT Press. Paul et al. 1977. Judith. Santa Monica.

. A. and Lennox. W. and O’toole. G.118 .154. Australia: John Wiley & Sons. E. SPSS: Analysis Without Anguish Version 11.. J. Beverly Hills: Sage. Trojilia..0 for Windows. and Steel. Beverly Hills: Sage. Public Policy Implementation: Evolution of the Field and Agenda for Future Research. Decentralization and Development: Policy Implementation in Development Countries. Pp. 1991. H. Did the Policy Fail?: The Selective Use of Automated Information in the Policy-Making Process Why Policy Success or Fail. Coggin. New York: HarperCollins. New York: Hanpercollishes. California: Sage. Dutton. 2001. G. G. 1990. Le Gales. Carmines. P. Public Policy Implementation: Evaluation of the Field and Agenda for Future Research. 1986. 1990. Aaron. W. 7. . 110 (2): 305– 314. L. 2001. Macolm. Review of Public Research. 1980. J. C. New Jersey: Sage. Brisbane. and McIver. 1: 200-217. Danziger. Bohrnstedt and E. Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modeling. W. Psychological Bulletin. 3rd ed. Bowman. K. H. Coakes. Essential of Psychology Testing. Dennis A. Lester. J. J. 1998. J. Crouch. M.. 1983. and Rondinelli. 1: 200-216. and Lester. G. Expanded Implementation: Implementation as Exploration. Goggin. P. eds. Cronbach. Chin.W.. In Social Measurement: Current Issues. Alliterative Ways of Assessing Model Fit. A. M. K. J. R.  144 Bollen. L. Local Production System in Europe: Rise or Demise? Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cheema. California: University of California Press. Conventional Wisdom on Measurement: A Structural Equation Perspective. 1984. MIS Quarterly. N. and Cudeek. in Texting Structural Equation Model. Angela and Wildavsky. Browne. 7. Policy Studies Review. Bowman. L. C. Implementation Theory and Practice: Toward a Third Generation. Brown. Analyzing models with Unobserved Variables. W. 1987. L. J.F. and Voelzkow. 1993. 22 (1): 1-3. Berkeley and Los Angeles. 1981. S. and Kraemer. Borgatta. R. Beverly Hills.

Luxemburg. Berlin: Springer Verlag.11. Complexity and Control: What Legislators and Administrators Can Do about Implementation. E. M. J. Steiner. Industrial Cluster Project. 2006 from http://ec. Retrieved June 23.europa. Regional Clusters: What We Know and What We should Know. Pp. Enright. New York: De Gruyter. and Interpretation.1840.dip.190–213. Finn. M. 2000. E. and Johnson.htm Feser. London: Pion Limited. On the Nature and Direction of Relationships between Constructs. J. 2003. Gill. J. ed. Tourism and Leisure Research Methods: Data Collection. Westport. Feser. Big Business and the Policy of Competition. Institute of Governmental Research. . M. Enright.. 2000.eu/invest-inresearch/policy/capital_report_en. and Bagozzi. Analysis. 1979. Report to the Commission of the High Level Expert Group on RICARDIS. 1991.: Greenwod Press. National Industry Cluster Templates: A Framework for Applied Regional Cluster Analysis. 2007 from http://www. ed. London: Paul Chapman.and Bergman. Pp. Retrieved October 1.129. In Innovation Clusters and Interregional Competition. et al. Edwards. In Clusters and Regional Specialisation. Old and New Theories of Industry Clusters. COM. Research Method for Managers. 1996. 1998. Regional Studies. Psychological Methods. E. P. Regional Clusters and Economic Development: A Research Agenda. J. England: Longman. R. Michael J. 1–19.99 . Elmore. 5 (2): 155– 174. Conn. 2006. P. M. R. Pp. European Commission.th Edward.  145 Department of Industrial Promotion (DIP). 2007. In Business Network: Prospects for Regional Development. Public Policy Paper No. Reporting Intellectual Capital to Augment Research. Corwin. University of Washington. 2000. Development and Innovation in SMEs. 1980. Richard F.go. Johannes Brocker et al.

Hambleton. ed. Exploratory Factor Analysis.255 . and Tattham. (42): 841–850. L. In Regional Innovation Systems. W. 1998. and Richard. eds. Organizational Behavior.277. J. . Gunn. H. 1998. E. 1996. 1983. Technologische Samenwerking in de Industrie en de Zakelijke Diensten.. In The Embedded Firm: On the Socioeconomics of Industrial Network. Habing. Multivariate Data Analysis. 1982. Brian W. W.pdf Hair. New York: Oxford University Press.. Doctoral dissertation. J. Indiana University. Retrieved December 15. Pazdeka-Robinson. Zoetermeer: EIM. Grabher. 1983.K. and Boulianne. G. C. G. and Snel. M and Palumbo.  146 Grabher. B. L. Slocum. G. R. 1981. Babin. 16 (1): 73-78. Boadu. 3rd ed. Implementing Public Policy. Planning Systems and Policy Implementation.86-101. Ecological Economics. An Investigation into the Relationship between Organizational Structure and Context and Interorganizational Network Centrality: The Case of Indianapolis Youth Service Delivery Agencies. D. W.. Hoffman. K. G. Graduate School of Business. Anderson. London: UCL-Press. D. H. Lewis A. B. The Baden-Wurttemberg Production and Innovation Regime-between Past Successes and New Challenges. Braczyk. Pp. London: Routledge. Hellriegel. R. Heidenreich.edu/~habing/courses/530EFA. The Weakness of Strong Ties: The Lock-in of Regional Development in the Ruhr Area. 2007. Environmental Policy under a Nonmarket Discount Rate. Black. S. J. M. P Cooke and M Heidenreich. H. Alan Nathan..stat. 1993. Englewood Cliffs: Practice Hall. New York: West Publishing. W. Policy Analysis for the Real World. D.: Lexington Books. 2010.and Krauss.sc. Horowitz. Personality and Individual Differences. J. 2003. E. F. Cumming. Harder. (October): 397–418. Hulshoff. Robin. Hayduk.J. USA. Journal of Public Policy.. 2010 from http://www. Pp. and Hogwood.. 1984.

New York: John Wiley & Sons. Kanlaya Vanichbuncha. 1976. A. Industrial Policy and Firm Strategy. 5: 481504. Faculty of Commerce and Accountancy. New York: Mc-Graw Hill. 2003. D. Mazmanian. G. 2007. ed. Australia: Addison Wesley Longman Australia. In Data Mining Cookbook. Leahy. Bangkok: Department of Statistics. 1979. K. R. Organization and Management: A System Approach. and Sabatier. Harvard Business School. The Developments of the Cluster Concept-Present Experiences and Further Development. A Menu Approach. Hamburg: June. Kast. H. Policy Analysis. High Level of Statistical Analysis. D. P. 8: 425–437. (In Thai). Dissertation on Concepts for Cluster-Identification with an Application to an Alleged Aeronautics Cluster in Northern Germany. Pp. Inc. 2003. Christian. Bangkok: Department of Statistics. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Lisrel 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the Simplist Command Language. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management. 1996. Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners. 2002. D.  147 Jacob. 3rd ed. . and Sorbom. Policy Sciences. 7: 351-363. 2001. Kumar. Kerr. (In Thai). Paper for the NRW Conference on Clusters in Germany. The Logic of Policy and Successful Policies. 8th ed. P. Lublinski. Multicollinearity: When the Solution is the Problem. 1996. James E. Chulalongkorn University. November.106-108. Libsky. The Conditions of Effective Implementation: A Guild to Accomplishing Policy Objectives. M. and Rosenzweig. Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service. Ketels. and De Man. 1970. Fremont E. Using of SPSS for Window: Data Analysis. Joreskog. Cluster. Faculty of Commerce and Accountancy. 1993. Chulalongkorn University. Chicago: Software International. Kanlaya Vanichbuncha. Olivia Parr Rud. K. Melbourne. D. 1980. Alf Erko.

Thammasat University. A State-of-the-Art Study. Industrial Cluster Study Report. Tokyo: METI.nesdb. (In Thai). The Implementation Game. Nauwelaers. Ministry of Economic Affairs of Italy. Clusters and Clusters Polices: Elements for European Benchmarking (The Case of Flanders and Wallonia). The Theory of Street-Level Bureaucracy: A Positive Critique. Martin’s Press. Retrieved September 23. 1 (May): 74-94. Paper presented at the 11th Annual Symposium Organized by the Faculty of Economics.  148 Mazmanian. Public Policy: Goals. The Implementation of Public Policy: A Framework of Analysis. USA. Martin’s Press. . 1983. Nagel.go. Administration & Society. University of Maastricht.: St. M. NESDB. Thailand. S. NESDB. Cluster Development: Concept and Development. Ministry of Economy. Ministry of Industry. Moores. R and Smallwood.th. Economic Theories and Economic Policies Determination: An Application in Thailand. Nakamura.go. 2005a. 2003. 2007. F. Strategic Study Industry Clusters and SMEs. 2008. 1980. New York. Means. February 15th-16th. 1987. Trade and Industry (METI). Policy Studies Journal. 2008 from http://www. and Sabatier. 19. Retrieved October 13 2008 from http://www. 2010 from http://www. Bangkok: MI.meti. McLaughin. 2010 from http://www. Trade and Industry (METI). P. Medhi Krongkaew. A. 2003. 1984. and Hospers. Stuart S.th.jp/english Ministry of Economy.go. J. 1975. C. Retrieved May 21. 8. Industry 2000+ Towards Global Competition. NESDB. Retrieved October 12. 1998. 1988. MERIT working paper. Massachusetts: MIT Press. New York: St. Cambridge.nesdb.nesdb. 4: 538-567.go. The Politics of Policy Implementation. Industrial Cluster.th. 2000. 2005b. D. and Methods. G. The 10th National Economics and Social Development Board. P. Industrial Cluster Project. Muizer.

2010. 1990. (In Thai). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.th OSMEP.go. Porter.org OSMEP. 2010. J. Cluster Concept. Retrieved July 8th. 1988.go. 1978. 2009. Retrieved September 10. 1997. 4: 318-346. M.go. 2007. Specifying Formative Constructs in Information Systems Research. Petter. Porter. D. and Straub. Managing Technology Alliances.osmep. MIS Quarterly. Retrieved December 12. Specific Formative Constructs in IS Research. 2010 from http://www. 2003. M. S.th Patton. . Nueno.nesdb. Structural Causal Relationship (LISREL): Statistics for Research of Social Science and Behavioral Science. 2010 from http://www. 2007.osmep. M.. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Psychometric Theory. 2006. Definition of SMEs. Long Range Planning. Really? Strategic Management Journal. Numchai Suppareakchaisakul. D. 2001. 2010 from http://www. Srinakharinwirot Universtiy. Retrieved September 10. J. Petter. Harvard Business Review.th Neuman. Straub. OECD. Definition of Cluster. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. The White Paper on Small and Medium Enterprises of Thailand in 2009 and Trends 2010. December): 623-656. Bangkok: Chulalongkong University Printing. C. 21: 11–17. Nunnally.  149 NESDB. London: Macmilla Appendix n. Bangkok: Behavioral Science Research Institute. M Q. 18 (Summer Special Issue): 15-30. (31: 4. Evaluation of Program Implementation. Clusters and the New Economics of Competition. 1994. 1979. 1998a. P. Multilevel Analysis by HLM. S. and Rai. How Much Does Industry Matter. and Osterveld. Porter. 2008 from http://www. (In Thai). Nonglak Wiratchai. A. New York: McGraw-Hill. Evaluation Studies Reviews Annuals. 31 (4): 623–656. (December): 77–90. L. W. MIS Quarterly.oecd.

Clusters and Company Strategy.: University of California Press. Or. R. Cluster Analysis and Cluster Policy in the Netherlands. M. P. In Boosting Innovation: The Cluster Approach. M. California: University of California Press. J. Porter. DTI Economic Paper No. Pressman. Petersen.. M. Paper Presented at the OECD-Workshot. Implementation. 1997.: The Brookings Institution. and Van Hout. UK Competitiveness: Moving to the Next Stage.1 Pp. 2003. 1973. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.15-31. Pressman. P. A. August. Pp. OECD.3. On Competitive Advantage of Nations. Cluster Analysis and Cluster-Based Policy Making in OECD Countries: An Introduction to the Theme. T. ed. 1984. Jeffrey L. Systematic Thinking for Social Action. 1971. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.  150 Porter. Roelandt. 1998b. Ch. and Den Hertog.97). Paris: OECD Industrial Cluster Focus Group. P. 2nd ed. Van Sinderen. Locations. Roelandt. J. 10-11. Why It's Amazing that Federal Programs Work at All. Cluster Development in Hungary: A Study of the Possibility for the Automotive Industry and the Wood and Furniture Industry to Enhance Regional Sustainable Development. M. 1993. Edward Elgar. Roelandt.9– 23. Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington are Dashed in Oakland. Roskilde: Departement of Environment. A. Rietveld. Porter. T. E. T. Implementation. B. and Ketels. Berkeley: University of California Press. Statistical Techniques for the Study of Language and Language Behavior. and Den Hertog. USA. 1997.10. C. Cluster Analysis and Cluster Policy in the Netherlands. Aaron. Roskilde Universtiy. London: Macmillan. A. and Vollaard. and Wildavski. and Wildavski. 1999. Pressman. Paris: OECD. Lis and Wichard. Den Hertog.. OECD Workshop Position Paper on Cluster Analyses and Cluster-Based Policies (Amsterdam. and Wildavsky. Technology and Social Studies. Washington. DC. 1979. T. David B Audretsch. In SMEs in the Age of Globalization. . J. Berkeley. Ravn. Rivlin. 2003. 2005. J.

New York: Willy. Sabatier. Policy Studies Journal Contents. Special Issue: 538-560. Encyclopedia of Policy Studies. 34 (2): 225–260.4. New Zealand: Victoria University of Wellington.York: Marcel Dekker. J. and Strenkhorst. Daniel. Davis. Daniel. August. Management for Productivity. 1980. Pp. European Planning Studies.97-209. 1979. 3): 392-406. Bringing Business Clusters into the Mainstream of Economic Development. Ed. Causal Modeling Non Experimental Research: An Introduction to the Lisrel Approach. and Sennett. Paul and Mazmanian. Group and Organizational Level. 1997. Londen: Routledge.481-504. 1982. In Policy Analysis. . Sabherwal. In Policy Science. New. 1999. In Brookes School of Planning. The Implementation of Public Policy: A Framework of Analysis. 51: 3–23. D Hart. Schermerhorn. 1989. Smith. and Becerra. Rumjuan Benjasiri. Pp. Policy Studies Review. Decision Science. F. Thomas B. Pp. Ch. J. E. 1983. R. The Conditions of Effective Implementation. 1984. 2 (February. Ann. 1973. The Policy Implementation Process. J. Studying Policy Implementation. Innovation in the London Metropolitan Region. Paul and Mazmanian. Paul and Mazmanian. 1983.Stuart Nagel.143169. Dissertation Abstract International. Working Paper 182. 2003.  151 Rosenfeld. Schneider. An Empirical Study of the Effect of Knowledge Management Processes at Individual. Sorg. Policy Implementation. S. Simmie. Sabatier. H. The Implementation of Public Sector Standard Management System and Outcomes (PSO): A Case Study of the Community Development Department. Daniel. Saris. School of Political Science and Public Administration. J Simmie. 3rd ed. 2002. John R. 47 (7): 2261-A. Sabatier. W. Doctoral dissertation. National Institute of Development Administration. P Wood and J Sennett. A Typology of Implementation Behaviors of Street-Level Bureaucrats. L. California: Institute of Governmental Affairs.

M. P. G.A. and Van Winden. “Tracking Manufacturing Performance: A Review of Industrial Sector in Thailand. (February) 445-487. and Prevezer.: Massachusetts. Research Methodology for Public Administration. D. Policy Implementation in the Federal System.. Swann. National Goals and Local Implementers. M. Van den Berg. C.S. 1: 186–206. 1975. and Van Horn. Swann. New York: Harper Collins. Doctoral dissertation. Research Policy. and Stout.. 1998. Urban Studies. G. Lexington. 1992.653-771. A Comparison of the Dynamics of Industrial Clustering in Computing and Biotechnology. 25: 1139–1157. (In Thai). Bangkok: Thai Wattana Panid.G. Educational Journal. M. E. Ullman. B. Van Meter. eds. M. Using Multivariate Statistics. Thongchai Santiwong. Administration & Society Review. Fidell. J. 38. Prevezer. Bangkok: Senatham Printing. Thawilwade Bureekul. Tabachnick and L. 1979. 2002. 2004. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2006. eds.. 2001.” UNIDO Bangkok-Occasional Papers Series. 1998. D. Environmental and Natural Resource Economics. W. P.  152 Suchitra Punyaratabandhu. . 1991. 1 (June-October): 15-28. The Dynamics of Industrial Clustering: International Comparisons in Computing and Biotechnology. National Institute of Development Administration. Sudayu Teeravanittrakul. 2003. E. L. Bangkok. The Policy Implementation Process: A Conceptual Framework. C. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. T. Tientenberg. S. 1996. Tambunlertchai. In B. Growth Clusters in European Cities: An Integral Approach. Braun. Pp. Heath & Company. The Promotion of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors for Human Resource Sustainable Development in Organization. Structural Equation Modeling. 5th ed. 7th ed. Major Factors Affecting Industrial Hazardous Waste Policy Implementation in Central Thailand. 16. M. Planning. Van Horn.

Benefit-Cost Analysis in Theory and Practice. 1999. Richard and Dively. Bangkok: Chulalongkong University. National Institute of Development Administration. LISREL: Statistical Analysis for Research. 1994. Social Policy Research and Analysis: The Experience in the Federal Social Agencies. 2001. N. 1984. 1971. Major Factor Influencing the Healthy City Policy Implementation. Peter. 6. 2nd ed. Doctoral dissertation.. Wittrock. Policy as a Moving Target: A Call for Conceptual Realism. Voradej Chandarasorn. Viratchai. Dwight. 1994. Bjorn and De Leon. 1986. Policy Deployment: Model and Value. Williams. Yinyon Senitwong Na Ayudhya.  153 Viratchai. LISREL: Statistical Analysis for Social and Behavioral Research. N. . Bangkok: National Institute of Development Administration. New York: American Elsevier Publishing Co. New York: Harper Collins College Pubs. 3rd ed. Bangkok: Chulalongkong University. Review of Policy Research. W. 1 (August): 44-60. Zerbe.

APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE (ENGLISH) .

Marketing Section [ ] 3. Research and Development Section [ ] 6. please specify [ ] 1. Name . Associate degree [ ] 6. Others (please specify) [ ] 3. 1 Gender [ ] 1.155 QUESTIONNAIRE (ENGLISH) Part 1 General Information of Questionnaire’s Respondent Please indicate in the level of your opinion and fill in information in the provided Title area as your opinion. Secretary Section [ ] 2. Committee members. Elementary [ ] 3. Junior high school [ ] 4. Others (Please specify) [ ] 2. Chairman [ ] 2. Public Relation Section [ ] 5.Surname Company / Agency Address ____________________________Number Moo ___________ Soi ________________ Tanon Tambon ______________________ Amphur _____________ Province Telephone ____________________ Fax No. Member [ ] 2. 2 Age ___________ years No. Male No. Production Section [ ] 4. Bachelor degree [ ] 7. Training Section [ ] 7. 4 Your title in your industrial cluster [ ] 1. 3 Level of education [ ] 1. High school [ ] 5. Master degree [ ] 8. PhD No. Female .

Others (Please specific) No. 7 Characteristics of your enterprise’s investment [ ] 1.2550? [ ] 1. No.E. 5 Years of establishment of your company. Decreasing 10.1 Numbers of employees in production department equal to____________ 10. controller.4 Numbers of skilled labor outside production department equal to _____or _______ percent Remarks: Employees in production department are such as factory manager. factory engineer. Natural person [ ] 3.2550? [ ] 1. 10 Your enterprise has a number of labors at 30th September 2007 equals to . All Thai investment [ ] 2. Decreasing [ ] 2. Employees outside production department are such administration department. 2548 . Joint venture with foreigners.2 Numbers of employees outside production department equal to________ 10. . engine controller. Cooperate [ ] 4. employee in production line. Increasing Reason No. by proportion of Thai investment Foreign investment percent percent Comprised of Citizenship __________ Proportion _______ percent Citizenship __________ Proportion _______ percent Citizenship __________ Proportion _______ percent No. 6 What is a kind of registration that your enterprise signs up for? [ ] 1. accounting department. comprised of 10.E. Stable [ ] 3. marketing department. 8 How is the tendency of total selling volume from B. B.E.156 No. Stable [ ] 3.3 Numbers of skilled labors equal to _______ or percent [ ] 2. 9 How is the tendency of net profit from B. 2548 . Company Limited [ ] 2. Increasing Reason No. human resource department.

3 Import from foreign countries. Scarcity of marketing information [ ] 6. 15 What are the kinds of problems that your enterprise is facing? (Could be more than one answer) [ ] 1. Scarcity of technological knowledge and new innovation [ ] 5. percent. Scarcity of specialized worker [ ] 4. To which countries No._____________________(please specific countries) No. Scarcity of raw material in domestic. Scarcity of quality labor [ ] 3. 13 Where is the source of production? What is the percentage? 13.1 Within the province. [ ] 1. 12 Numbers of main products in your enterprise equal to___________. for example. 14 Proportion of your selling product. Small size of product market . High cost of running business [ ] 8. Foreign countries percent percent. Problems of high competition in pricing [ ] 9.2 Outside the province. percent. for example. Example of export product . utilized raw materials. percent.157 No. need to import from abroad [ ] 2. Domestic [ ] 2. such as No. for example. __________________________________________________________ 13. utilized raw material. (please specific provinces) 13. utilized raw materials. Scarcity of fund for managing business [ ] 7. 11 Labors in your enterprise compose of Numbers of labors in your province equal to _________ or ______ percent Numbers of labors outside your province equal to _____or ______ percent Numbers of foreign labors equal to or ______ percent No.

Problem of imitated design and product development [ ] 11. Department of Industrial Promotion (Please specific) ] 6. Private organizations such as provincial chamber of commerce. Local Administrative Organization ex. (Please specific) [ ] 4. (Please specific) [ ] 3. Others (Please specific) No. members of provincial council. etc.158 [ ] 10. Citizenship representatives such as members of the house of representative. etc. Other governmental units (Please specific) Please explain in details of the source of the project No 17 Please identify obstacles and developed measure for running the project Obstacle Developed measure Part 2 Information of Participation of Stakeholders Please indicate in the level of your opinion and fill in information in the provided area as your opinion. . professional group. General citizens / enterprises [ ] 2. Sub District Administration Organization. agricultural group. 16 Who are the ones who established your industrial cluster? (Could be more than one answer) [ ] 1. (Please specific) [ [ ] 5. etc. Municipality.

Participation in setting up projects Step of running the project 4. Participation in monitoring and evaluation Step of initiated project 9. Providing information 5 4 Level of Agreement 3 2 1 0 . Identify problem 2. Participation in setting up projects Step of running the project 12. Providing information 3. Identify problem 10. 1 – 16 Did Citizens in That area or Private Organizations Participate in Initiative and Processing the Industrial Cluster Project? And How? (Please use symbol “ ” in Provided Box) Participation of Stakeholders Step of initiated project 1. Providing information 6. Providing information 11. Participation in project operation 8. Identify problem 5. Participation in setting up projects 7. Identify problem 13.159 No.

(In case of this question. 18 Please identify details of activities that created for developing your industrial cluster project. the level of cooperation among related persons in the project.160 Participation of Stakeholders 14. Initiating of developing industrial cluster 2. Participation in monitoring and evaluation 5 4 Level of Agreement 3 2 1 0 No. Participation in project operation 16. participation of stockholders is considered in operated activities compared to total activities as percentage) Activities 1. Level of Agreement 4 3 2 1 No. Creating cluster development agents (CDA) in order to facilitate the development of industrial cluster Operate Non-operate . 17 Measurement 5 In operating the project. Participation in setting up projects 15.

Analyzing the strength. Initiating the seminar of opening industrial cluster and public relationship industrial cluster project 8. Creating workshop trainings Total Operate Non-operate . Selecting a pilot project 16. Explaining and disseminating knowledge and cognition about the development of industrial cluster 13. weakness. Creating the leader of industrial cluster 10. Creating workshop meetings 11.161 Activities 3. Initiating a connected activity 15. Gathering information and studying characteristics of industrial cluster 5. Selecting cluster members to join industrial cluster project 9. Creating academic trainings 17. Taking care and managing the operating as well as providing fundamental consultancy to stockholders 14. Adapting industrial cluster plan to the real practice 12. and threat of industrial cluster 6. Creating the planning of controlling and operating cluster implementation 7. Scoping term of studies and research of industrial cluster project 4. opportunity.

. 23 – 49 According to the following of the implementation on your industrial cluster in fiscal year 2007.162 Part 3 Information Related to Management Ability of Department of Industrial Promotion (DIP) Please indicate in the level of your opinion and fill in information in the provided area as your opinion. it was found that your industrial cluster had done 27 activities. 20 – 21 Measurement 3 Clarity of hierarchical structure Responsibility of responsible workers Level of Agreement 2 1 No. No. 19 Measurement 5 The level of the delay of budget reimbursement of Department of Industrial Promotion 4 Level of Agreement 3 2 1 0 No. Please fill up the percentage of the success your activities that appeared as your cluster’s plan. 22 Measurement 5 Cooperation of related workers within the project 4 Level of Agreement 3 2 1 No.

Monitoring and following the implementation of a cluster development agent (CDA) or a project consultant . Hiring consultant or cluster development agent (CDA) 2. Signing up for cooperation with domestic organizations 23. Initiating a connected activity 9. Transforming industrial cluster planning to the real practice 11. Taking care and managing the implementation as well as fundamental consultancy for stockholders 12. Initiating domestic studying activities 15. Initiating cluster branding 19. Initiating foreign studying activities 16. Initiating cluster website 21. and threats 5. Signing up for cooperation with foreign organizations 24. Gathering information and study about industrial cluster 4. Analyzing strengths. Managing workshop training 14. Creating CDA team for developing industrial cluster 3. Doing plan for controlling the implementation 6. Initiating workshop meeting 10. Selecting cluster members 8.163 Activities Percentage of the Success 1. Establishing the cluster joint venture company 22. Coordinating the development of packaging design 20. Initiating international exhibition 18. opportunities. Initiating academic training 13. weakness. Initiating domestic exhibition 17. Initiating opening seminar and public relationship of industrial cluster 7.

Measurement 5 Level of sufficiency of allocated budget for implementing the project Level of sufficiency of government officials who are responsible for implementing the project Level of sufficiency of office instruments that has been used in the project Level of Opinion 4 3 2 1 . Monitoring and following the implementation of industrial cluster 27. 50 – 52 Percentage of allocated budget to proposed budget for developing industrial cluster.164 Activities Percentage of the Success 25. Initiating questionnaires and preparing for receiving other opinions 26. Reporting the studying result of the success for implementing industrial cluster and circulating to stockholders for benefic Part 4 Information of Perceived Support from Department of Industrial Promotion (DIP) No.

56 – 60 Please evaluate enterprises who join your industrial cluster project in fiscal year 2007 by using the symbol “ ” in provided box from minimum (score = 1 point) to maximum (score = 10 points). Level of Understanding Points Maximum 10 1. 53 Percentage of allocated budget from DIP to proposed budget by industrial cluster Measurement 5 Level of knowledge and cognition about industrial cluster before joining industrial cluster Level of Opinion 4 3 2 1 No. Knowledge and understanding of industrial cluster Maximum 9 8 7 6 Score 5 4 3 Mininum 2 1 . Project Goal 2. and the goal of implementation on the industrial cluster project from the very low level (score = 1 point) to the very high level (score = 10 points). Implementation Procedure 3. Project Goal 9 8 7 6 5 4 Minimum 3 2 1 No. the process.165 Part 5 Clarity of Goal No. Items 10 1. 54 – 55 Level of your cognition and understanding about the objectives.

Ability for implementing industrial cluster activities by cooperation among cluster members 4. Helping each others among cluster members 9 8 7 6 Score 5 4 3 Mininum 2 1 Items Part 6 Ability of Cluster Members and Policy Implementers No. Considering the importance of industrial cluster 3.166 Maximum 10 2. Enthusiasm of doing cluster’s activities 5. 61 – 62 Measurement 3 Level of knowledge about industrial cluster development of government officials who responsible for the project Level of experience about industrial cluster of government officials who responsible for the project Level of Opinion 2 1 . Reliability among cluster members 6.

Your CDA has ability in coordinating / listening to opinions as well as giving consultancies and services to develop industrial cluster 6.76 How does your opinion regarding your cluster development agent (CDA) should have some important qualifications? Please identify from minimum (score = 1 point) to maximum (score = 10 points) as your opinion. Your CDA has a deep knowledge in the concept of industrial cluster 4. 63 Measurement 5 Level of benefit of received information can apply for implementing the project Level of Opinion 4 3 2 1 No. Your CDA has ability for planning 3. Your CDA understand the objectives of industrial cluster project 5. Level of Importance Qualifications Max 10 1. 64 .167 No. Your CDA has vision and creative thinking for analyzing his/her industrial cluster 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 Min 2 1 . Your CDA is a person who considers overall benefit and needs of stockholders in the industry 2.

Your CDA has an experience in implementing industrial cluster project 13. Your CDA has a managing ability and is able to implement the development of industrial cluster steps by steps 12. Your CDA has ability to transmit missions to the cluster leader and coordinator 10. Your CDA has self-confidence and dares to express his/her opinion 8. Your CDA has ability to report the studying result 11. Your CDA is responsible for implementing industrial cluster project 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 Min 2 1 .168 Level of Importance Qualifications Max 10 7. Your CDA has good humans relationship and personality 9.

169 Part 7 Information Related to Exchange Information and to Utilize Information (Communication) No. ” in provided box from minimum (score = 1 Items 1 To exchange information among cluster members To communicate and / or to distribute information among cluster members To exchange technology in production To express opinion related to develop industrial cluster Min 2 3 4 5 Score 6 7 8 Max 9 10 . 79 . 77 .78 Measurements Max 5 Level of received information about developing industrial cluster from organizations within Ministry of Industry Level of received information about developing industrial cluster from related public and private organizations 4 3 2 Level of Opinion Min 1 No.82 Please evaluate enterprises on industrial cluster project in fiscal year 2007 in different points by using symbol “ point) to maximum (score = 10 points).

1 DIP officials have time for providing consultancy to cluster members 1.2 To set time for implementing activities Min 1 2 Satisfaction in services of DIP officials 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Max 10 . Level of satisfaction starts from minimum (score = 1 point) to high score (score = 10 points) Items 1. What is your opinion? Level of opinion 2 Little better 1 No. 85 – 128 Please identify scores by level of satisfaction in services of DIP officials from participating industrial cluster in fiscal year 2007 by using symbol “ ” in provided box.170 Part 8 Information Related to Quality of the Project No. Getting into services 1. 84 Measurement Max 5 Level of developed rapidity in your industrial cluster 4 3 2 Level of Opinion Min 1 No. 83 Measurement Much better 3 Level of characteristics of industrial cluster compared to last year.

171 Min 1 1.4 The rapidity of communication in coordination with cluster members in the project 2.5 Coordination with related organization about the development of industrial cluster 3.3 To set location for implementing activities 2. Knowledge and ability 3.1 Ability to explain cluster members to have better understanding about the development of industrial cluster 2.1 Knowledge and ability of the development of industrial cluster 3.2 Expertise of the development in industrial cluster 2 Satisfaction in services of DIP officials 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Max 10 Items . Communication / Coordination 2.3 To provide beneficial information for developing industrial cluster to cluster Members 2.2 Ability to transfer missions to cluster members in order to implement the development of industrial cluster continuously 2.

1 Regularity of participation in activities for the development of industrial cluster 6.3 Enthusiasm on implementation the project 5.3 Knowledge about the industry that is developed 4.4 Taking care of work implementation within the working period indicated in the work plan 6. Believes 6.3 Taking care of work implementation followed to the settle plan 5.172 Min 1 3.2 Paying attention for implementation the project 4.2 To develop industrial cluster correspondent to the project’s objectives 2 Satisfaction in services of DIP officials 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Max 10 Items . Helping each others 4.1 Human relationships with other cluster members 4.2 Supporting on initiation of the clearly industrial cluster development plan 5. Reliability 5.1 Gathering information and studying characteristics of industrial cluster 5.

Stable and security 8.1 Taking care of establishing the cluster committees or the cluster leader 8.4 Evaluation of the result on implemented activities 9.2 To facilitate in implemented activities of industrial cluster 2 Satisfaction in services of DIP officials 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Max 10 Items .173 Min 1 7.3 Following the result of implementation continuously 8. To create service familiarly 9. Understanding and getting to know cluster members 10.1 To coordinate in consultancy of implemented activities 10.1 The rapidity of response to cluster members 7.2 Impulse your industrial cluster in the plan / strategy in any level 8.1 Public relationship on the industrial cluster project in order to inform stockholders getting to know of the project 9. Response to members 7.2 The rapidity of solving member’s problems 8.2 Public relationship of implemented activities to cluster members and public 10.

174 No. Communication / Coordination 2. 129 – 145 Please indicate score by level of your satisfaction on service of your project consultant from participated activities in fiscal year 2007 by using symbol “ ” in provided box.2 To set time for implementing activities 1.3 To set location for implementing activities 2.3 To provide beneficial information for developing industrial cluster to cluster Members Min 1 2 Satisfaction in services of consultant 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Max 10 . In case.1 Consultant has time for providing consultancy to cluster members 1. Getting into services 1. Items 1. if your industrial cluster does not have consultant. Level of satisfaction starts from minimum (score = 1 point) to high score (score = 10 points).2 Ability to transfer missions to cluster members in order to implement the development of industrial cluster continuously 2.1 Ability to explain cluster members to have better understanding about the development of industrial cluster 2. please skip this question.

5 Coordination with related organization about the development of industrial cluster 3.2 Supporting on initiation of the clearly industrial cluster development plan 2 Satisfaction in services of consultant 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Max 10 Items .1 Gathering information and studying characteristics of industrial cluster 5. Helping each others 4.3 Knowledge about the industry that is developed 4.1 Knowledge and ability of the development of industrial cluster 3. Reliability 5.4 The rapidity of communication in coordination with cluster members in the project 2.1 Human relationships with other cluster members 4.3 Enthusiasm on implementation the project 5.175 Min 1 2.2 Expertise of the development in industrial cluster 3.2 Paying attention for implementation the project 4. Knowledge and ability 3.

3 Taking care of work implementation followed to the settle plan 5.2 To develop industrial cluster correspondent to the project’s objectives 7.2 Impulse your industrial cluster in the plan / strategy in any level 8.1 Taking care of establishing the cluster committees or the cluster leader 8.176 Min 1 5. Believes 6.4 Evaluation of the result on implemented activities 2 Satisfaction in services of consultant 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Max 10 Items .4 Taking care of work implementation within the working period indicated in the work plan 6.2 The rapidity of solving member’s problems 8.1 The rapidity of response to cluster members 7.3 Following the result of implementation continuously 8. Stable and security 8. Response to members 7.1 Regularity of participation in activities for the development of industrial cluster 6.

Understanding and getting to know cluster members 10.1 To coordinate in consultancy of implemented activities 10.1 Public relationship on the industrial cluster project in order to inform stockholders getting to know of the project 9.2 To facilitate in implemented activities of industrial cluster 2 Satisfaction in services of consultant 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Max 10 Items .2 Public relationship of implemented activities to cluster members and public 10.177 Min 1 9. To create service familiarly 9.

Realization and seeing the importance on international industrial cluster 3. Industrial cluster has a benefit to your industrial cluster Before joining the project Max 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 Min 2 3 After joining the project Max 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 178 .178 Part 9 Information Related to Effectiveness on Project Implementation No. Realization and seeing the importance on domestic industrial cluster 2. 146 .150 Score Items Min 1 1. Understanding about the development of industrial cluster 4. Industrial cluster has a benefit to your enterprise 5.

Taking care and managing the operation as well as providing fundamental working consultancy of stakeholders 12. Transforming the plan of the developing on industrial cluster project to the real practice 11. Initiating academic trainings 13. Initiating workshop trainings 14. opportunities. Initiating the opening seminar and public relationship of your industrial cluster project 7. Initiating studying activities in domestic 15. Activities Percentage of the Success 1. 151 According to the following on the implementation in the past. Initiating domestic exhibition . Hiring consultant or cluster development agent (CDA) 2.179 No. it was found that your industrial cluster in fiscal year 2007 had done 27 activities. Analyzing the strengths. Initiating workshop meetings 10. Creating the team of cluster development agent (CDA) for developing industrial cluster 3. weaknesses. Initiating a connected activity 9. Gathering information and studying the characteristics of your industrial cluster 4. Initiating studying activities aboard 16. Selecting cluster members who join the project 8. Initiating plans for work controlling 6. and threats of your industrial cluster 5. Please check the status (percentage of the success) on activities’ implementation as you indicated in your work plan.

Initiating international exhibition 18. Monitoring and following the implementation of industrial cluster 27. Signing up the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) domestically 23. Coordinating in product design of the cluster 20.180 Percentage of the Success Activities 17. Monitoring and following on the implementation of CDA 25. Initiating questionnaires and preparing points in order to listen to other opinions 26. Initiating jointed venture company 22. Reporting the studying result on the implementation of industrial cluster and informing to stakeholders for further beneficial uses No. Signing up the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) internationally 24. Initiating cluster website 21. 152 Measurement Max 3 Level of clarity of your industrial cluster in fiscal year 2007 Level of Opinion 2 Min 1 Part 10 Information Related to Efficiency of Project Implementation B/C Ratio received from DIP database . Initiating joined product branding 19.

181 APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE (THAI) .

/ปวท. มัธยมศึกษาตอนตน [ ] 1.1 ฝายการตลาด [ ] 2. ปวส.4 ฝายวิจัยและพัฒนา [ ] 2. ระดับการศึกษาสูงสุด [ ] 2. ประธาน [ ] 2.  182 แบบสอบถาม สวนที่ 1 ขอมูลทั่วไปของผูใหสัมภาษณ คําชี้แจง โปรดทําเครื่องหมาย ลงในชองตามระดับความเห็นของทาน และโปรดกรอก ขอความตามความเห็นของทาน ตําแหนง ชื่อ-นามสกุลผูใหขอมูล  ชื่อสถานประกอบการ ที่ตั้งของสถานประกอบการ _________________________________ เลขที่ หมู ___________ ซอย ______________________ ถนน ตําบล ______________________ อําเภอ ____________________ จังหวัด โทรศัพท _____________________________________ โทรสาร ขอ 1. หญิง ขอ 2. อายุ ___________ ป ขอ 3.2 ฝายการผลิต [ ] 2. ปริญญาเอก [ ] 8./อนุปริญญา [ ] 5.6 เลขานุการ [ ] 2.5 ฝายฝกอบรม [ ] 2.3 ฝายประชาสัมพันธ [ ] 2. ปริญญาโท [ ] 7. ประถมศึกษา [ ] 3. มัธยมศึกษาตอนปลาย/ปวช. ชาย [ ] 2. [ ] 4. ปริญญาตรี [ ] 6.7 อืน ๆ (โปรดระบุ) ่ [ ] 3. คณะกรรมการ โปรดระบุตาแหนงของทาน ํ [ ] 2. อืนๆ (โปรดระบุ) ่ ขอ 4. เพศ [ ] 1. สมาชิก . ตําแหนงของทานในกลุมอุตสาหกรรมนี้ [ ] 1.

ยอดขายรวมตั้งแต ป พ. บุคคลธรรมดา [ ] 2. แรงงานในสถานประกอบการของทาน ประกอบดวย คน หรือ รอยละ แรงงานในจังหวัด จํานวน คน หรือ รอยละ แรงงานตางจังหวัด จํานวน แรงงานตางชาติ จํานวน คน หรือ รอยละ . ขอ 6.4 แรงงานนอกฝายผลิตที่มีทกษะจํานวน ั คน หรือ รอยละ หมายเหตุ: พนักงานลูกจางฝายผลิตหรือโรงงาน ไดแก ผูจัดการโรงงาน วิศวกรโรงงานหัวหนาผู ควบคุมงาน ผูควบคุมเครื่องจักร ลูกจางที่ทํางานในกระบวนการผลิต พนักงานลูกจางที่ไมใชฝายผลิต ไดแก ฝายบริหาร ฝายบุคคล ฝายขาย/บริการฝายบัญชี ขอ 11.ศ. คงที่ [ ] 3. ลดลง เนื่องจาก ขอ 10. สถานประกอบการของทานมีจํานวนแรงงาน ณ วันที่ 30 กันยายน พ. คงที่ [ ] 3. ลดลง เนื่องจาก ขอ 9. อื่น ๆ (โปรดระบุ) ั ขอ 7.183 ขอ 5.3 แรงงานฝายผลิตทีมีทกษะจํานวน ่ ั คน หรือ รอยละ 10. หางหุนสวน  [ ] 3. เพิ่มขึน ้ [ ] 2. บริษทจํากัด [ ] 4.2 พนักงานลูกจางนอกฝายผลิตจํานวน คน 10. เปนการลงทุนของคนไทยทั้งหมด [ ] 2.ศ. กําไรสุทธิตั้งแต ป พ.ศ.1 พนักงานลูกจางฝายผลิตจํานวน 10. สถานประกอบการของทานไดเริ่มดําเนินการตั้งแต ป พ. ลักษณะการลงทุนของสถานประกอบการของทานเปนแบบใด [ ] 1. สถานประกอบการของทานจดทะเบียนในรูปแบบใด [ ] 1. เปนการรวมลงทุนกับคนตางชาติ โดยมีการลงทุนของ คนไทย รอยละ ตางชาติ รอยละ รอยละ ประกอบดวยหุนของคนสัญชาติ สัญชาติ รอยละ สัญชาติ รอยละ ขอ 8.ศ. 2550 ทั้งหมด คน ประกอบดวย คน 10. เพิ่มขึน ้ [ ] 2. 2548-2550 มีแนวโนมอยางไร [ ] 1. 2548-2550 มีแนวโนมอยางไร [ ] 1.

สัดสวนของสินคาที่ทานจําหนาย  [ ] 1. ปญหาดานการออกแบบและพัฒนาผลิตภัณฑ [ ] 11. ขาดแคลนขอมูลทางการตลาด [ ] 6.184 ขอ 12. ขาดแคลนผูเชี่ยวชาญเฉพาะทาง [ ] 4.3 นําเขาจากตางประเทศ รอยละ วัตถุดิบที่ใช ไดแก (โปรดระบุประเทศทีนําเขา) ่ ขอ 14. ตนทุนการดําเนินงานสูง [ ] 8. ปญหาการแขงขันทีรุนแรงทางดานราคา ่ [ ] 9. วัตถุดิบที่ใชในการผลิตมาจากแหลงใด คิดเปนมูลคารอยละเทาไร __ วัตถุดิบที่ใช ไดแก 13. ขาดเงินทุนในการประกอบกิจการ [ ] 7. สถานประกอบการของทานผลิตสินคาหลักจํานวน ชนิด ไดแก (โปรดระบุ) ขอ 13. ขาดแคลนแรงงานทีมีคุณภาพ [ ] 3. การประกอบกิจการของทานประสบปญหาประการใดบาง (ตอบไดมากกวา 1 ขอ) [ ] 1. ตลาดสินคามีขนาดเล็ก [ ] 10.1 ภายในจังหวัด รอยละ วัตถุดิบที่ใช ไดแก 13.2 ตางจังหวัด รอยละ (โปรดระบุจังหวัดที่นาเขา) ํ 13. ขาดแคลนวัตถุดิบภายในประเทศตองทําการนําเขาวัตถุดิบจากตางประเทศ ่ [ ] 2. ตางประเทศ รอยละ สงออกไปยังประเทศ ขอ 15. ในประเทศ รอยละ โดยสินคาที่สงออก ไดแก  [ ] 2. ขาดแคลนความรูทางเทคโนโลยีและนวัตกรรมใหม ๆ  [ ] 5. อื่น ๆ (โปรดระบุ) .

ประชาชน / วิสาหกิจ [ ] 2. สมาชิกสภาจังหวัด ฯลฯ (โปรดระบุ) [ ] 4. โปรดระบุปญหาและแนวทางการแกไขในการดําเนินงานโครงการ ฯ ปญหา แนวทางการแกไข . ใครเปนผูรเริ่มดําเนินงานการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรมนี้ (ระบุไดมากกวา 1 ขอ) ิ [ ] 1. ศูนยภาค/กรมสงเสริมอุตสาหกรรม (โปรดระบุ) [ ] 6.185 ขอ 16. องคกรบริหารสวนตําบล ฯลฯ ่ (โปรดระบุ) [ ] 5. องคกรเอกชน เชน หอการคาจังหวัด. กลุมอาชีพตาง ๆ ฯลฯ (โปรดระบุ) [ ] 3. องคการบริหารสวนทองถิน เชน เทศบาล. สวนราชการอืน ๆ (โปรดระบุ) ่ โปรดอธิบายรายละเอียดที่มาของโครงการโดยสรุป ขอ 17. กลุมสหกรณ. ผูแทนประชาชน เชน สมาชิกสภาผูแทนราษฎร.

การมีสวนรวมในการ ติดตามประเมินผล ขั้นการริเริ่มโครงการฯ 9. การรวมจัดทําโครงการ ฯ ขั้นการดําเนินงานใน โครงการ ฯ 4. การรวมจัดทําโครงการ ฯ 7. การรวมปฏิบัติงาน 8. การชี้ปญหา 13. การชี้ปญหา 10. การชี้ปญหา 2.การรวมจัดทําโครงการ ฯ ขั้นการดําเนินงานใน โครงการ ฯ 12. การชี้ปญหา 5. การใหขอมูล 3. การใหขอมูล 6. การใหขอมูล ระดับความเห็น 3 2 5 4 1 0 .186 สวนที่ 2 ขอมูลการมีสวนรวมของผูมีสวนเกี่ยวของ (Participation of Stackholders)  คําชี้แจง โปรดทําเครื่องหมาย ลงในชองตามระดับความเห็นของทาน และโปรดกรอก ขอความตามความเห็นของทาน ขอ 1 – 16 ประชาชนในพืนที่และองคกรเอกชนมีสวนรวมในการริเริมและดําเนินงานใน ้  ่ โครงการฯ หรือไม อยางไร (โปรดใสเครื่องหมาย ในชองทีกําหนดไว) ่ การมีสวนรวมของ ประชาชนในพื้นที่ ขั้นการริเริ่มโครงการฯ 1. การใหขอมูล 11.

จัดสัมมนาเปดตัวแนะนําและประชาสัมพันธโครงการ . รวบรวมขอมูลและศึกษาลักษณะของกลุมอุตสาหกรรม 5. สรางทีมผูอานวยความสะดวกในการพัฒนาการ ํ รวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรม 3.187 การมีสวนรวมของ ประชาชนในพื้นที่ 14. กําหนดขอบเขตการศึกษาและขอกําหนดของการวิจย ั โครงการฯ 4.การรวมจัดทําโครงการ ฯ 15. จัดทําแผนเพื่อควบคุมดูแลการปฏิบัติงาน 7. การรวมปฏิบัติงาน 16. ทําการวิเคราะหจุดแข็ง จุดออน โอกาส อุปสรรคของ กลุม 6. ริเริ่มการดําเนินการพัฒนาการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรม 2. การมีสวนรวมในการ ติดตามประเมินผล ขอ 17 Measurement 5 4 ระดับความเห็น 3 2 1 0 5 ในการดําเนินงานโครงการนี้มีความรวมมือ ระหวางบุคลากรภายในโครงการในระดับใด ระดับความเห็น 4 3 2 1 ขอ 18 โปรดระบุรายละเอียดของกิจกรรมตาง ๆ ที่จัดทําขึ้นในโครงการพัฒนาการรวมกลุม อุตสาหกรรมของทาน (ในกรณีคาถามขอนี้ การมีสวนรวมของผูมีสวนเกียวของจะคิดเปนรอยละ ํ ่ ของกิจกรรมทีมีการดําเนินการเมื่อเปรียบเทียบกับจํานวนกิจการทังหมด) ่ ้ มีการ ดําเนินการ ไมมีการ ดําเนินการ กิจกรรม 1.

ดูแลและจัดการการดําเนินงานพรอมทั้งใหคํา ปรึกษาหารือเบื้องตนกับผูมสวนได-สวนเสีย  ี 14. จัดกิจกรรมกลุมสัมพันธ 15.188 กิจกรรม 8. อธิบายและเผยแพรความรูความเขาใจในองคความรู เกี่ยวกับการพัฒนาการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรม 13. แปลงแผนการพัฒนาการรวมกลุม อุตสาหกรรมไปสูการปฏิบัติ 12. คัดเลือกโครงการนํารอง 16. จัดการอบรมเชิงวิชาการ 17. จัดประชุมเชิงปฏิบัติการ 11. จัดการฝกอบรมเชิงปฏิบติการ ั รวม มีการ ดําเนินการ ไมมีการ ดําเนินการ . คัดเลือกวิสาหกิจเขารวมโครงการฯ 9. สรางผูนาในการพัฒนาการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรม  ํ 10.

189 สวนที่ 3 ขอมูลความสามารถในการบริหารจัดการงานของหนวยงานภาครัฐ (Management Ability) คําชี้แจง โปรดทําเครื่องหมาย ลงในชองตามระดับความเห็นของทาน และโปรดกรอก ขอความตามความเห็นของทาน ขอ 19 Measurement 5 ระดับความลาชาในการเบิกจาย งบประมาณของกรมสงเสริม อุตสาหกรรม ขอ 20 – 21 Measurement 3 ความชัดเจนของการกําหนดสาย บังคับบัญชา ความรับผิดชอบของการกําหนด หนาที่ความรับผิดชอบงาน ขอ 22 Measurement 5 ความรวมมือของบุคคลากร ภายในโครงการ 4 ระดับความเห็น 3 2 1 4 ระดับความเห็น 3 2 1 0 ระดับความเห็น 2 1 .

จัดงานแสดงสินคาในตางประเทศ 18. จัดการฝกอบรมเชิงปฏิบติการ ั 14. จัดการประชุมเชิงปฏิบัตการ ิ 10. แปลงแผนการพัฒนาการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรมไปสูการปฏิบัติ 11. ทําการวิเคราะหจดแข็ง จุดออน โอกาส อุปสรรคของกลุม ุ  5.190 ขอ 23 – 49 จากการติดตามการดําเนินงานในชวงที่ผานมาพบวากลุมอุตสาหกรรมของทาน ไดมี การดําเนินกิจกรรมเพื่อพัฒนาการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรมในปงบประมาณ 2550 ทั้งหมดจํานวน 27 กิจกรรม โปรดตรวจสอบสถานะของการดําเนินกิจกรรมของทานตามที่ระบุไวในแผน พรอมทั้งระบุ ความสําเร็จ ประโยชน และปญหาของแตละกิจกรรม รวมทั้งในกรณีที่มีเจาหนาที่ในหนวยงาน ทานเขารวมกิจกรรมดังกลาวโปรดระบุจํานวนเจาหนาที่ที่เขารวมกิจกรรม กิจกรรม 1. จัดสัมมนาเปดตัวแนะนําและประชาสัมพันธโครงการฯ 7. จัดงานแสดงสินคาภายในประเทศ 17. จัดการอบรมเชิงวิชาการ 13. จัดกิจกรรมศึกษาดูงานตางประเทศ 16. รวบรวมขอมูลและศึกษาลักษณะของกลุมอุตสาหกรรม 4. จัดกิจกรรมศึกษาดูงานในประเทศ 15. จัดทําตราสินคารวมกัน รอยละความสําเร็จ . สรางทีมผูอานวยความสะดวก (CDA) ในการพัฒนาการรวมกลุม ํ อุตสาหกรรม 3. จัดจางที่ปรึกษาหรือผูอํานวยความสะดวก 2. จัดกิจกรรมกลุมสัมพันธ 9. ดูแลและจัดการการดําเนินงาน พรอมทั้งใหคําปรึกษาหารือ เบื้องตนกับผูมีสวนได-สวนเสีย  12. จัดทําแผนเพื่อควบคุมดูแลการปฏิบัติงาน 6. คัดเลือกวิสาหกิจเขารวมโครงการฯ 8.

รวมลงนามความรวมมือกับหนวยงานในตางประเทศ 24. จัดทําเว็บไซตของกลุม 21. จัดตั้งบริษัทรวมทุนของกลุม 22. รายงานผลการศึกษาความสําเร็จในการดําเนินการพัฒนาการ รวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรม และเผยแพรใหผูมีสวนได-สวนเสียไดใช  ประโยชนตอไป รอยละความสําเร็จ สวนที่ 4 ขอมูลการไดรบการสนับสนุนจากหนวยงานภาครัฐ (Perceived Support) ั ขอ 50 – 52 รอยละของงบประมาณที่อนุมัติตองบประมาณที่เสนอขอในการพัฒนากลุม อุตสาหกรรม Measurement 5 ระดับความพอเพียงของงบประมาณที่ไดรับ การจัดสรรทั้งหมดในการดําเนินโครงการฯ ระดับความพอเพียงของเจาหนาที่ ผูรับผิดชอบโครงการฯ ในการปฏิบัติงาน ระดับความพอเพียงของจํานวนครุภัณฑ (วัสดุอุปกรณคงทน) ที่ใชในโครงการ ระดับความเห็น 4 3 2 1 . รวมกันพัฒนาบรรจุภณฑของกลุม ั 20. จัดทําแบบสอบถามและเตรียมประเด็นเพื่อรับฟงความคิดเห็น 26.191 กิจกรรม 19. รวมลงนามความรวมมือกับหนวยงานภายในประเทศ 23. กํากับติดตามการดําเนินงานของกลุมอุตสาหกรรม  27. กํากับติดตามการดําเนินงานของผูอานวยความสะดวกหรือที่ ํ ปรึกษาโครงการฯ 25.

กระบวนการในการดําเนินงาน 3. เปาหมายของโครงการ ระดับความเห็น 4 3 2 1 มาก 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 นอย 2 1 ขอ 56 – 60 โปรดประเมินวิสาหกิจในโครงการพัฒนาการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรมของทานใน ปงบประมาณ 2550 ในประเด็นตางๆ ตอไปนี้ โดยใสเครื่องหมาย ในชองที่กาหนดไว จากนอย ํ (1 คะแนน) ไปหามาก (10 คะแนน) ในกรณีที่ทานไมสามารถประเมินไดใหใสในชองไมทราบ .192 สวนที่ 5 ขอมูลความชัดเจนของวัตถุประสงคโครงการฯ (Clarity of Goal) ขอ 53 รอยละของงบประมาณที่อนุมัติตองบประมาณที่เสนอขอในการพัฒนากลุมอุตสาหกรรม  Measurement 5 ระดับความรูความเขาใจเกี่ยวกับการ พัฒนาการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรม หรือคลัสเตอรมากอนเขารวมเปนสมาชิก กลุมอุตสาหกรรมหรือไม ขอ 54 – 55 ทานมีการรับรูและเขาใจถึง วัตถุประสงค กระบวนการในการดําเนินงาน และ เปาหมายของการดําเนินโครงการพัฒนาการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรมหรือไม ในระดับใด โปรดระบุ ระดับความเขาใจจากนอย (1 คะแนน) ไปหามาก (10 คะแนน) รับรูโดยมีระดับความเขาใจ ประเด็น 10 1. วัตถุประสงคของโครงการ 2.

ความกระตือรือรนในการทํา กิจกรรมกลุม 5.193 รายการ 1. ความไววางใจระหวาง สมาชิก 6 ความมีน้ําใจระหวางสมาชิก 10 9 มาก 8 7 คะแนน 6 5 4 นอย 3 2 1 สวนที่ 6 ขอมูลความรูความสามารถของผูมีสวนเกียวของ (Ability of Cluster Members ่ and Policy Implementers) ขอ 61 – 62 Measurement 3 ระดับความรูเกี่ยวกับการพัฒนาการ รวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรมของเจาหนาที่ ดูแลรับผิดชอบโครงการฯ ระดับของประสบการณเกี่ยวกับการ พัฒนาการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรม ของเจาหนาทีดูแลรับผิดชอบ ่ โครงการฯ ระดับความเห็น 2 1 . ความสามารถในการดําเนิน กิจกรรมโดยใชความรวมมือ ระหวางสมาชิกภายในกลุม ดวยตนเอง 4. ความรูความเขาใจในเรื่อง การพัฒนาการรวมกลุม อุตสาหกรรม 2. การเห็นความสําคัญของการ รวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรม 3.

มีความเชื่อมั่นในตนเองและกลาแสดง ความคิดเห็น มาก 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 นอย 2 1 ระดับความเห็น 4 3 2 1 . มีความรอบรูลึกซึ้งในแนวคิดการ พัฒนาการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรม 4. มีความสามารถดานการวางแผน 3. เปนผูที่คํานึงถึงประโยชนสวนรวม  และความตองการของผูมีสวนได-สวน  เสียที่เกี่ยวของทังหมดในอุตสาหกรรม ้ 2. มีวิสยทัศน ความคิดริเริ่มสรางสรรค ั ในการคิดวิเคราะหและวินิจฉัยกลุม 7. มีความสามารถในการประสานงาน/ รับฟงความคิดเห็น ตลอดจนเปนที่ ปรึกษาและใหบริการคําแนะนําในการ พัฒนาการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรม 6. มีความเขาใจวัตถุประสงคของ โครงการพัฒนาการรวมกลุม อุตสาหกรรม 5.76 ทานมีความคิดเห็นวาผูอํานวยความสะดวกโครงการพัฒนาการรวมกลุมและ เชื่อมโยงอุตสาหกรรมควรมีคุณสมบัตที่สําคัญอยางไรบาง โปรดระบุคะแนนระดับความสําคัญจาก ิ นอย (1 คะแนน) ไปหามาก (10 คะแนน) ระดับความสําคัญ คุณสมบัติ 1.194 ขอ 63 Measurement 5 ระดับประโยชนของขอมูลขาวสารที่ไดรับสามารถใน การดําเนินงานโครงการ ฯ ขอ 64 .

มีมนุษยสัมพันธและบุคลิกภาพดี 9. มีความสามารถในการรายงานผล การศึกษา 11. มีความรับผิดชอบตอการดําเนิน โครงการพัฒนาการรวมกลุม อุตสาหกรรม มาก 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 นอย 2 1 .195 ระดับความสําคัญ คุณสมบัติ 8. มีความสามารถในการถายทอด ภารกิจใหผูนา/ผูประสานงานในการ ํ พัฒนาการรวมกลุมได 10. มีประสบการณในการดําเนิน โครงการพัฒนาการรวมกลุม อุตสาหกรรม 13. มีความสามารถจัดการและ ดําเนินการตามขั้นตอนการ พัฒนาการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรมได สําเร็จ 12.

196 สวนที่ 7 ขอมูลความรูเกียวของกับการแลกเปลี่ยนขอมูลขาวสาร การใชประโยชนจาก ่ ขอมูลขาวสาร (Communication) ขอ 77 .82 โปรดประเมินวิสาหกิจในโครงการพัฒนาการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรมของทานใน ปงบประมาณ 2550 ในประเด็นตางๆ ตอไปนี้ โดยใสเครื่องหมาย ในชองที่กาหนดไว จากนอย ํ (1 คะแนน) ไปหามาก (10 คะแนน) รายการ การแลกเปลี่ยนขอมูลขาวสาร ระหวางสมาชิกในกลุม การติดตอสื่อสารและ/หรือการ กระจายขอมูลขาวสารระหวาง สมาชิกในกลุม การแลกเปลี่ยนเทคโนโลยีการผลิต การแสดงความคิดเห็นในการ พัฒนาการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรม ระดับความเห็น 4 3 2 นอย 1 นอย 1 2 3 4 คะแนน 5 6 7 8 มาก 9 10 .78 Measurement มาก 5 ระดับของการไดรับขอมูลขาวสารเกียวกับ ่ การพัฒนาการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรมจาก หนวยงานทีเ่ กียวของภายในกระทรวง ่ อุตสาหกรรม ระดับของการไดรับขอมูลขาวสารเกียวกับ ่ การพัฒนาการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรมจาก หนวยงานทีเ่ กียวของอืน ๆ ทังภาครัฐและ ่ ่ ้ ภาคเอกชน ขอ 79 .

1 การมีเวลาใหคําปรึกษาหารือ แกสมาชิก 1.2 การกําหนดชวงเวลาในการ ดําเนินกิจกรรม นอย ความพึงพอใจในการบริการของเจาหนาที่กรมฯ มาก ดีขึ้นมาก 3 ระดับความเห็น 2 ดีขึ้นนอย 1 ระดับความเห็น 4 3 2 นอย 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 .197 สวนที่ 8 ขอมูลเกียวกับคุณภาพของโครงการ (Quality of Project) ่ ขอ 83 Measurement ระดับของลักษณะการรวมกลุม อุตสาหกรรมดังกลาวเมื่อ เปรียบเทียบกับปที่แลว ทานมี ความคิดเห็นวากลุมอุตสาหกรรม ของทานมีลกษณะอยางไร ั ขอ 84 Measurement มาก 5 ระดับของความรวดเร็วในการพัฒนาการ รวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรมของทาน ขอ 85 – 128 โปรดระบุคะแนนตามระดับความพึงพอใจของทานในการบริการของเจาหนาที่ของ กรมสงเสริมอุตสาหกรรม จากการเขารวมกิจกรรมการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรมในปงบประมาณ 2550 โดยใสเครื่องหมาย ในชองทีกาหนดไว ซึ่งมีระดับความพึงพอใจจากนอย (1 คะแนน) ไป ่ํ หามาก (10 คะแนน) รายการ 1. การเขาถึงบริการ 1.

2 ความเอาใจใสในการดําเนินงาน 4.4 ความรวดเร็วในการติดตอ ประสานงานกับสมาชิกในโครงการ 2.198 นอย ความพึงพอใจในการบริการของเจาหนาที่กรมฯ มาก รายการ 1.1 การมีมนุษยสัมพันธกับสมาชิก 4.1 ความสามารถในการอธิบาย ใหสมาชิกมีความเขาใจเกี่ยวกับ การพัฒนาการรวมกลุม 2.3 ความกระตือรือรนในการ ดําเนินงาน 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 . ความมีน้ําใจ 4.2 ความสามารถในการถายทอด ภารกิจใหแกสมาชิกเพื่อดําเนินการ พัฒนาการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรม ไดอยางตอเนื่อง 2. ความรูความสามารถ 3.1 ความรูความสามารถในการ พัฒนาการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรม 3.2 ความชํานาญในการพัฒนาการ รวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรม 3.3 การกําหนดสถานที่ในการ ดําเนินกิจกรรม 2. การติดตอสื่อสาร/ ประสานงาน 2.5 การประสานงานกับหนวยงานที่ เกี่ยวของกับการพัฒนาการรวมกลุม อุตสาหกรรมอยางทัน 3.3 ความรูเกี่ยวกับอุตสาหกรรมที่ ทําการพัฒนา 4.3 การใหข อ มูลที่เปนประโยชน ในการพัฒนาการรวมกลุม อุตสาหกรรมแกสมาชิก 2.

2 การพัฒนากลุมอุตสาหกรรม ใหเปนไปตามเปาหมายที่กําหนด 7.3 การดูแลใหมีการปฏิบตงาน ั ิ ตามแผนที่กําหนด 5.2 การผลักดันใหการพัฒนาการ รวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรมของทาน บรรจุในแผน/แผนยุทธศาสตร ระดับ 8.1 ความสม่ําเสมอในการเขารวม กิจกรรมการพัฒนาการรวมกลุม 6.1 การดูแลใหมีการจัดตั้ง คณะกรรมการหรือผูนํากลุม อุตสาหกรรม 8.3 การติดตามผลการดําเนินงาน อยางตอเนื่อง 8.1 การรวบรวมขอมูลและศึกษา ลักษณะของกลุมอุตสาหกรรม 5.2 การสนับสนุนใหมีการจัดทํา แผนการพัฒนาการรวมกลุม อุตสาหกรรมอยางชัดเจน 5.1 ความรวดเร็วในการตอบสนอง ตอความตองการของสมาชิก 7. ความมั่นคงปลอดภัย 8. การตอบสนองตอสมาชิก 7. ความนาเชื่อถือ 5.4 การดูแลใหมีการปฏิบัตงาน ิ ตามแผนภายในระยะเวลาที่กําหนด 6.4 การประเมินผลการดําเนิน กิจกรรมตางๆ ที่ไดดําเนินการ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 . ความไววางใจ 6.199 นอย ความพึงพอใจในการบริการของเจาหนาที่กรมฯ มาก รายการ 5.2 ความรวดเร็วในการแกไข ปญหาตางๆ ของสมาชิก 8.

การสรางบริการใหเปนที่รูจัก 9.200 นอย ความพึงพอใจในการบริการของเจาหนาที่กรมฯ มาก รายการ 9.1 การมีเวลาใหคําปรึกษาหารือ แกสมาชิก 1.1 ความสามารถในการอธิบาย ใหสมาชิกมีความเขาใจเกี่ยวกับ การพัฒนาการรวมกลุม นอย ความพึงพอใจในการบริการของที่ปรึกษา มาก 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 . การเขาใจและการรูจัก สมาชิกในกลุมอุตสาหกรรม 10. การเขาถึงบริการ 1.2 การอํานวยความสะดวกใน การดําเนินกิจกรรมของกลุม 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ขอ 129 – 145 โปรดระบุคะแนนตามระดับความพึงพอใจของทานในการบริการของที่ปรึกษา โครงการ จากการเขารวมกิจกรรมการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรมในปงบประมาณ 2550 โดยใส ํ ่ เครื่องหมาย ในชองที่กาหนดไว ซึงมีระดับความพึงพอใจจากนอย (1 คะแนน) ไปหามาก (10 คะแนน) (หากกลุมอุตสาหกรรมของทานไมมีที่ปรึกษาโครงการ กรุณาขามขอนี้) รายการ 1.1 การรวมปรึกษาหารือในการ ดําเนินกิจกรรม 10.3 การกําหนดสถานที่ในการ ดําเนินกิจกรรม 2.1 การประชาสัมพันธโครงการ พัฒนาการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรม ใหผูมีสวนเกี่ยวของไดรับทราบ 9.2 การประชาสัมพันธการดําเนิน กิจกรรมของสมาชิกสูสาธารณชน 10.2 การกําหนดชวงเวลาในการ ดําเนินกิจกรรม 1. การติดตอสื่อสาร/ประสานงาน 2.

5 การประสานงานกับหนวยงานที่ เกี่ยวของกับการพัฒนาการรวมกลุม อุตสาหกรรมอยางทัน 3.1 การรวบรวมขอมูลและศึกษา ลักษณะของกลุมอุตสาหกรรม 5.4 ความรวดเร็วในการติดตอ ประสานงานกับสมาชิกในโครงการ 2.2 การสนับสนุนใหมีการจัดทํา แผนการพัฒนาการรวมกลุม อุตสาหกรรมอยางชัดเจน 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 .3 การใหข อ มูลที่เปนประโยชน ในการพัฒนาการรวมกลุม อุตสาหกรรมแกสมาชิก 2.2 ความชํานาญในการพัฒนาการ รวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรม 3. ความนาเชื่อถือ 5.1 การมีมนุษยสัมพันธกับสมาชิก 4.1 ความรูความสามารถในการ พัฒนาการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรม 3.201 นอย ความพึงพอใจในการบริการของที่ปรึกษา มาก รายการ 2. ความรูความสามารถ 3.2 ความเอาใจใสในการดําเนินงาน 4.2 ความสามารถในการถายทอด ภ า ร กิ จ ใ ห แ ก ส ม า ชิ ก เ พื่ อ ดําเนินการพัฒนาการรวมกลุม อุตสาหกรรมไดอยางตอเนื่อง 2.3 ความกระตือรือรนในการ ดําเนินงาน 5.3 ความรูเกี่ยวกับอุตสาหกรรมที่ ทําการพัฒนา 4. ความมีน้ําใจ 4.

การสรางบริการใหเปนที่รูจัก 9.1 ความรวดเร็วในการตอบสนอง ตอความตองการของสมาชิก 7.1 การดูแลใหมีการจัดตั้ง คณะกรรมการหรือผูนํากลุม อุตสาหกรรม 8.202 นอย ความพึงพอใจในการบริการของที่ปรึกษา มาก รายการ 5. ความไววางใจ 6.4 การประเมินผลการดําเนิน กิจกรรมตางๆ ที่ไดดําเนินการ 9.2 การประชาสัมพันธการดําเนิน กิจกรรมของสมาชิกสูสาธารณชน 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 .3 การดูแลใหมีการปฏิบตงาน ั ิ ตามแผนที่กําหนด 5.4 การดูแลใหมีการปฏิบตงาน ั ิ ตามแผนภายในระยะเวลาที่กําหนด 6.3 การติดตามผลการดําเนินงาน อยางตอเนื่อง 8.1 ความสม่ําเสมอในการเขารวม กิจกรรมการพัฒนาการรวมกลุม 6.2 การพัฒนากลุมอุตสาหกรรมให เปนไปตามเปาหมายที่กําหนด 7. ความมั่นคงปลอดภัย 8.2 ความรวดเร็วในการแกไข ปญหาตางๆ ของสมาชิก 8. การตอบสนองตอสมาชิก 7.1 การประชาสัมพันธโครงการ พัฒนาการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรม ใหผูมีสวนเกี่ยวของไดรับทราบ 9.2 การผลักดันใหการพัฒนาการ รวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรมของทาน บรรจุในแผน/แผนยุทธศาสตรระดับ 8.

203 นอย ความพึงพอใจในการบริการของที่ปรึกษา มาก รายการ 10.1 การรวมปรึกษาหารือในการ ดําเนินกิจกรรม 10.2 การอํานวยความสะดวกใน การดําเนินกิจกรรมของกลุม 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 . การเขาใจและการรูจัก สมาชิกในกลุมอุตสาหกรรม 10.

การตระหนักและเห็นความสําคัญ ของการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรม ภายในประเทศ 2.204 สวนที่ 9 ขอมูลเกียวกับประสิทธิผลจากการดําเนินโครงการฯ (Effectiveness) ่ ขอ 146 . การรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรมมี ประโยชนตอการประกอบกิจการ ของทาน 5. การรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรมมี ประโยชนตอกลุมอุตสาหกรรม  ของทาน 204 . การตระหนักและเห็นความสําคัญ ของการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรมกับ ตางประเทศ 3.150 คะแนน รายการ กอนเขารวมโครงการ นอย 1 มาก 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 นอย 10 1 2 3 หลังเขารวมโครงการ มาก 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. ความเขาใจเกี่ยวกับการ พัฒนาการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรม 4.

จัดการอบรมเชิงวิชาการ 13. สรางทีมผูอานวยความสะดวก (CDA) ในการพัฒนาการรวมกลุม ํ อุตสาหกรรม 3. จัดการประชุมเชิงปฏิบัตการ ิ 10.205 ขอ 151 จากการติดตามการดําเนินงานในชวงที่ผานมาพบวากลุมอุตสาหกรรมของทาน ไดมี   การดําเนินกิจกรรมเพื่อพัฒนาการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรมในปงบประมาณ 2550 ทั้งหมด จํานวน 27 กิจกรรม โปรดตรวจสอบสถานะ (รอยละความสําเร็จ) ของการดําเนินกิจกรรมของ ทานตามที่ระบุไวในแผน กิจกรรม 1. จัดกิจกรรมศึกษาดูงานตางประเทศ 16. รวมกันพัฒนาบรรจุภณฑของกลุม ั รอยละความสําเร็จ . แปลงแผนการพัฒนาการรวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรมไปสูการปฏิบัติ 11. จัดงานแสดงสินคาในตางประเทศ 18. จัดกิจกรรมศึกษาดูงานในประเทศ 15. จัดทําแผนเพื่อควบคุมดูแลการปฏิบัติงาน 6. จัดจางที่ปรึกษาหรือผูอํานวยความสะดวก 2. จัดกิจกรรมกลุมสัมพันธ 9. ทําการวิเคราะหจดแข็ง จุดออน โอกาส อุปสรรคของกลุม ุ  5. คัดเลือกวิสาหกิจเขารวมโครงการ ฯ 8. จัดงานแสดงสินคาภายในประเทศ 17. จัดสัมมนาเปดตัวแนะนําและประชาสัมพันธโครงการ ฯ 7. จัดการฝกอบรมเชิงปฏิบติการ ั 14. จัดทําตราสินคารวมกัน 19. ดูแลและจัดการการดําเนินงาน พรอมทั้งใหคําปรึกษาหารือ เบื้องตนกับผูมีสวนได-สวนเสีย  12. รวบรวมขอมูลและศึกษาลักษณะของกลุมอุตสาหกรรม 4.

จัดตั้งบริษัทรวมทุนของกลุม 22.206 กิจกรรม 20. กํากับติดตามการดําเนินงานของกลุมอุตสาหกรรม  27. จัดทําแบบสอบถามและเตรียมประเด็นเพื่อรับฟงความคิดเห็น 26. รายงานผลการศึกษาความสําเร็จในการดําเนินการพัฒนาการ รวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรม และเผยแพรใหผูมีสวนได-สวนเสียไดใช  ประโยชนตอไป รอยละความสําเร็จ ขอ 152 Measurement ระดับของความชัดเจนในการ รวมกลุมอุตสาหกรรมของทานใน ปงบประมาณ 2550 สวนที่ 10 ขอมูลเกี่ยวกับประสิทธิภาพจากการดําเนินโครงการฯ (Effeciency) B/C Ratio received from DIP database มาก 3 ระดับความเห็น 2 นอย 1   . รวมลงนามความรวมมือกับหนวยงานภายในประเทศ 23. รวมลงนามความรวมมือกับหนวยงานในตางประเทศ 24. จัดทําเว็บไซตของกลุม 21. กํากับติดตามการดําเนินงานของผูอานวยความสะดวกหรือที่ ํ ปรึกษาโครงการ ฯ 25.

APPENDIX C DETAILS OF FACTOR LOADING .

684 -0.733 -0.640 0.815 -0.676 0.400 -0.476 -0.612 -0.665 -0.641 0.400 .683 0.315 -0.733 -0.340 -0.208 Table B.629 0.733 0.767 -0.641 0.1 Factor Loading of Participation of Stakeholders Participation of Stakeholders Participation of people in that area Stage of initiating the project Level of identifying the problems Level of providing information Level of participating in initiating the project Stage of implementing the project Level of identifying the problems Level of providing information Level of participating in initiating the project Level of participating in work procedure Participating in monitoring the project Participating of private organizations Stage of initiating the project Level of identifying the problems Level of providing information Level of participating in initiating the project Stage of implementing the project Level of identify the problems Level of providing information Level of participating in initiating the project Level of participating in work procedure Level of participating in monitoring the project Level of participation of internal project officials in implementing the project Level of initiation of implementing industrial cluster Level of creating cluster development agents Level of scoping studying boundary and terms of reference (TOR) Factor Loading 0.421 -0.

420 0.319 -0.312 0.426 -0.1 (Continued) Participation of Stakeholders Level of gathering information and studying characteristics of industrial cluster Level of analyzing strengths. opportunities.331 0.321 0.390 -0. and threats of industrial cluster Level of initiating plans for controlling working implementation Level of organizing a seminar introducing industrial cluster Level of selecting enterprises to join the project Level of assistance in creating a cluster leader Level of organizing work meetings Level of changing industrial cluster plans to real practice Level of taking care of work implementation and providing fundamental consultancy to stakeholders Level of organizing academic training Level of organizing workshop training Level of creating domestic study programs Level of creating international study programs Level of organizing trade exhibitions in Thailand Level of organizing trade exhibitions outside Thailand Level of creating cluster branding Level of developing cluster packaging Level of developing cluster website Level of creating joining investment company Level of sign up MOU with domestic organizations Level of sign up MOU with international organizations Level of creating questionnaires Level of monitoring and following industrial cluster implementation Level of reporting regarding industrial cluster implementation Factor Loading -0.390 -0.320 -0.209 Table B.341 0.411 -0.326 0.474 0.404 0.311 -0.391 .396 0.445 -0. weaknesses.365 -0.564 -0.339 -0.478 -0.532 -0.377 0.

962 0.623 0.2 Factor Loading of Management Ability Management ability Level of the delay in budget reimbursement Level of amount of DIP budget Level of clarity of hierarchical structure Level of responsibility of pointing out duties and responsibilities Level of cooperation within industrial cluster Level of hiring project consultant or CDA Level of creating CDA Level of gathering information and characteristics of industrial cluster Level of analyzing strengths.888 0.395 0.357 -0.336 Table B.383 -0.935 . opportunities.796 0.634 0.210 Table B.758 0.592 0.358 -0.642 0.968 0. and threats of industrial cluster Level of initiating plans for controlling work implementation Level of organizing seminars of introducing industrial cluster Level of selecting enterprises to join the project Level of organizing ice-breaking activities Level of organizing work meetings Level of changing industrial cluster plans to real practice Level of taking care of work implementation and providing fundamental consultancy to stakeholders Factor Loading -0.683 0.397 0. weaknesses.401 0.1 (Continued) Participation of Stakeholders Level of changing industrial cluster plans to real practice Level of taking care of work implementation and providing fundamental consultancy to stakeholders Level of organizing academic training Factor Loading 0.866 0.

460 0.2 (Continued) Management ability Level of organizing academic training Level of organizing workshop training Level of creating domestic study programs Level of creating international study programs Level of organizing trade exhibitions in Thailand Level of organizing trade exhibitions outside Thailand Level of creating cluster branding Level of developing cluster packaging Level of developing cluster website Level of creating joining investment company Level of signing up MOU with domestic organization Level of signing up MOU with international organization Level of creating questionnaires Level of monitoring and following industrial cluster implementation Level or reporting regarding industrial cluster implementation Factor Loading 0.807 0.211 Table B.428 0.847 Table B.809 0.919 0.663 0.459 0.351 -0.446 .587 0.845 0.3 Factor Loading of Perceived Support Perceived Support Factor Loading Level of intended budget Level of received budget Level of sufficiency of budget allocation Level of sufficiency of government officials that are responsible for the project Level of sufficiency of office instruments -0.447 -0.467 0.567 -0.403 -0.823 0.403 0.702 -0.744 0.

360 -0.817 0.733 0.801 0.804 0.212 Table B.653 Table B.789 0. and to provide consultancies for industrial cluster development Level of having creative thinking for analyzing industrial cluster Factor Loading -0.573 0.701 0.772 .669 0.521 0.542 0.485 0.361 0.4 Factor Loading of Clarity of Goal Clarity of goal Level of understanding of industrial cluster development before entering the project Level of understanding of project objective Level of understanding of work procedure/standards Level of understanding of project goals Level of knowledge and understanding of industrial cluster development Level of realization of industrial cluster development Level of being enthusiastic for doing cluster activities Level of reliability among cluster members Level of kindness among cluster members Factor Loading 0.781 0.5 Factor Loading of Ability of Cluster Members and Policy Implementers Ability of Cluster Members and Policy Implementers Level of DIP officials’ knowledge about industrial cluster development Level of DIP officials’ experience about industrial cluster development Level of applying received information to real practice Level of considering overall benefits and needs of stakeholders Level of ability to plan the project Level of deeply understanding the concept of industrial cluster development Level of understanding of industrial cluster project Level of ability to coordinate and to accept opinions.379 -0.489 0.

724 0.824 0.717 0.5 (Continued) Ability of Cluster Members and Policy Implementers Level of confidence in providing opinions Level of being friendly and good personality Level of ability to translate missions to leader and CDA for developing industrial cluster Level of ability to report the results of the study Level of managing and implementing to develop industrial cluster in steps Level of experience of industrial cluster project Level of responsibility of industrial cluster project Factor Loading 0.392 0.825 .743 0.793 Table B.213 Table B.686 0.6 Factor Loading of Communication Communication Level of receiving information related to industrial cluster development from within DIP Level of receiving information related to industrial cluster development from outside DIP Level of exchanging information among cluster members Level of communication and information distribution among cluster member Level of exchanging technology Level of providing opinions regarding cluster implementation Factor Loading -0.341 -0.963 0.797 0.691 0.621 0.

905 0.885 0.866 0.214 Table B.864 .348 0.7 Factor Loading of Quality of Project Quality of Project Level of improvement on characteristics of industrial cluster Level of quickness of industrial cluster development Entering the service Level of satisfaction of time that DIP officials provided consultancy to cluster members Level of satisfaction of time period that DIP officials implemented activities Level of satisfaction with location that DIP officials provide to cluster members to implement activities Coordination Level of satisfaction with DIP officials’ ability to explain to cluster members understanding of industrial cluster development Level of satisfaction with DIP officials’ ability to assign mission to cluster members for implementing industrial cluster development Level of satisfaction with DIP officials’ ability to provide benefit information to cluster for industrial cluster development Level of satisfaction with DIP officials’ ability to coordinate with related organizations in industrial cluster development Knowledge and ability Level of satisfaction of DIP officials’ knowledge and ability in the development of industrial cluster Level of satisfaction with DIP officials’ expertise in development of industrial cluster Level of satisfaction with DIP officials’ knowledge about industrial development Factor Loading -0.924 0.898 0.843 0.811 0.857 0.883 0.358 -0.

853 0.215 Table B.894 0.7 (Continued) Quality of Project Thoughtfulness Level of satisfaction with DIP officials regarding human relations with members Level of satisfaction with DIP officials in caring of working Level of satisfaction with DIP officials for being enthusiastic and reliable Level of satisfaction with DIP officials for collecting information and studying category of industrial cluster Level of satisfaction with DIP officials for supporting plans for development of industrial cluster Level of satisfaction with DIP officials in taking care of operation plans Level of satisfaction with DIP officials in taking care of operation plans in time Trust Level of satisfaction with DIP officials for regularity involving the activities of industrial cluster development Level of satisfaction with DIP officials in development of industrial cluster on target Members respond Level of satisfaction with DIP officials for immediately responding to members’ demands Level of satisfaction with DIP officials for immediately solving problems of members Security and safety Level of satisfaction with DIP officials for taking care of board building or industrial cluster leader Level of satisfaction with DIP officials for pushing development industrial cluster at the plan/strategic level Factor Loading 0.803 .875 0.900 0.856 0.874 0.814 0.873 0.876 0.876 0.896 0.871 0.

216 Table B.7 (Continued)

Quality of Project Level of satisfaction with DIP officials for following up on the working results Level of satisfaction with DIP officials for result evaluation of activities Creating familiar service Level of satisfaction with DIP officials in development of industrial cluster project information Level of satisfaction with DIP officials for information on activities Understanding and getting to know cluster members Level of providing consultancy about activities Level of facilitating members’ activities

Factor Loading

0.846 0.874

0.883 0.810 0.790 0.883

Table B.8 Factor Loading of Successful Implementation

Successful Implementation Level of realization and agreement regarding the importance of domestic industrial cluster Level of realization and agreement regarding the importance of international industrial cluster Level of understanding of industrial cluster Level of participation in industrial cluster benefits to enterprises Level of benefits for being industrial cluster Level of success in implementing activities Level of promoting business Level of cooperation Level of cluster members participating in implementing activities Level of cluster members promoting industrial cluster Level of increases in tentative profits Level of promotion of enterprise chain Level of benefit-cost ratio
 

Factor Loading

0.821

0.615 0.791 0.558 0.717 0.595 0.822 0.632 0.831 0.674 0.451 -0.362 0.351

APPENDIX D

MODEL OF SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION AMOS VERSION 6.0

218 Based on the literature review, the following model was framed and developed. Hypothesis 11 states that the proposed model fit well with the empirical data using Amos Version 6.0, as shown in Figure 5.1.

PS
ecom 1

MA SUP

COM
esi1 eqp 1

1

SI

CG

1 EN een 1 EC eec

QP

ACP

Figure C.1 Model of Successful Implementation of Industrial Cluster in Thailand

The results of the model assessment of Successful Implementation of Industrial Cluster in Thailand using Amos Version 6.0 are shown in Figure 2.

219

PS -.07 -.28 .11 -.05 .24 .08 CG .07 .17** ACP QP .25* -.06 -.11 .34 SUP -.06 .39 MA .36*** .13 .14 COM .26* .33**
eqp .41** ecom

.03 .66***
esi .96 .38 .43 EN een -.18.02

.00

.04

SI

EC eec

.33

Figure C.2 The Results of Hypothesized Model of Successful Implementation of Industrial Cluster in Thailand Note: Chi-square = 13.290, df = 11, P = 0.125, CMIN/DF =1.208, GFI = 0.987, RMSEA = 0.031 *P<0.10, **P<0.05, ***P<0.01

 

Economics University of California. Economics University of California. Santa Barbara (UCSB) PRESENT POSITION Industrial Technical Officer Department of Industrial Promotion Ministry of Industry Rama VI Road. Ratchathewi Bangkok 10400. Los Angeles (UCLA) M.A.BIOGRAPHY NAME Ariyaporn Suranartyuth ACADEMIC BACKGROUND B. Thailand        .A.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful