6

26 ..2558

Causal Factor on Competitiveness of Thai oil Palm Industry
. *, . **, ***, **** *****
Dr.Nantharat namburi, Dr.Thanakul Kootiphakdee, Teerayuth Mooleng, Santi Arakkunakorn
and Suthat rungrawiwon

65 8,959
450 5



0.56,0.45,0.41 0.41
0.05 2/df 2.53 RMSEA
0.042 NFI 0.99 CFI 0.97 RMR 0.03 GFI 0.96 AGFI
0.95
: , ,

; E-mail: nantharat.nbr@gmail.com.
E-mail: thanakul_ras@hotmail.com.
***
E-mail: Burahun@yahoo.com.
****
E-mail: Jareeparnar@gmail.com.
*****
E-mail: Ztouchai@hotmail.com.
**

[68]

Abstract
Oil palm is a plant that is very important for Thai economic in terms of consumption and energy.
However, Thailand still faces the problems and obstacles on creating competency in international trade
competition. This research aims to study factors affecting trade competency and to create a model which
explains causing relationship of each factor affecting competency of trade competition of Thai oil palm
industry. The population used in this research was the 8,959 officers of oil 65 palm extracted businesses.
The sample used was 450 officers selected by Stratified Random Sampling. The research tool was the 5
rating scale questionnaires. The statistic used was Pearsons Correlation, multiple regression analysis and
path analysis. The LISREL program was used for data analysis.
The findings indicated that the causing variant affecting the competency of trade competition is
that the competency of trade competition had direct influence from production efficiency factor,
knowledge management factor, developmental business innovation competency factor and government
policy factor. The influencing value was 0.56, 0.45, 0.41 and 0.41 at 0.05 of significance. The index of
model congruence was 2/df that equal 2.53. The RMSEA (root a square error of approximation) was
0.042, 0.99 of NFI, 0.97 of CFI, 0.03 of RMR, 0.96 of GFI and 0.95 of AGFI. The result showed that the
model developed from the theory and authentic information was correlated.
Keyword: Causal Factors, Competitiveness, Palm Oil Industry

20
(, 2557)
49 45
3
2 (Sriram & Raghraman, 2008)
..2006-2010
25 23 3
19
17 16 (Sriram & Raghraman, 2008)
70
2 90
10
(Sriram & Raghraman, 2008)

[69]



(
, 2557)

(Maurice, 2008)
(economy of scales)
(Amy & Charles, 2008)




(Laura, 2007)

65 8,959 (
, 2557) 450

1 4 1
2
3
4

(content validity)
(content validity)
5
(item-objective congruence: IOC)

(reliability) (try-out)
50

[70]


1.

2. 65 450
30

3.

1.
1.1
1.2 (mean) (standard deviation)

2.
2.1 (Pearsons product moment coefficient)

2.2 (Path analysis)

(goodness-of fit measures)

246
54.7 15 168 37.3
198 44.0



3.87 0.684

4.07 0.673
[71]

 3.82 0.602

4.11 0.675
3.72
0.450

3.95 0.624

3.85 0.595

4.01 0.624
3.84 0.654

4.03 0.586
3.73 0.615
3.86
0.592
4.01 0.657
4.15 0.688
3.93 0.631

4.18 0.698
3.91 0.508

4.03 0.649

3.91 0.611
4.13
0.514 3.86
0.619
4.08 0.579
3.79 0.571
3.92 0.644

3.98 0.556
4.13
0.514 3.97
[72]

 0.604
4.08 0.579
3.81
0.619
3.92 0.644


0.56 0.05

0.81 0.05


0.72 0.05

0.83
0.05

0.69 0.05

0.82 0.05


0.85 0.05

1

( , 2552)
Dirk


(Douglas McGregor, 1990)
(Kongkiti & Repee, 2007)

[73]

 (Philip & Stuart, 2008)

2


Ricks
( , 2549)




(Ricks Warren, 2004)

3

(
, 2547) hiemamehy process (AAP)



(Kongkiti & Repee, 2007)
4


( , 2547)



(Mohammad & Hassan, 2008)

Porters Five Forces Model 5

(Michael et al., 2005)

(Kalevi
& Jaana, 2008)

[74]

 5



( , 2549)


(Franklyn, 1992)


(Vittal & Shivraj, 2010: 17)

(Ruggles, 2007)

6



( , 2546)


(Lawson,
2008)
7



(Philip & Stuart, 2008)

1.


[75]

2.


3.

1.

2.

. (2549). :
. : .
. (2552). . 20 2554, http://www.diw.go.th.
. (2547). . : .
. (2546). (AFTA) .
: .
. (2547). . : .
. (2557). - . (). www.oae.go.th.
14 2557.
. (2549). . 44, 8 : 3-7.
. (2552). . : .
Amy, R. R., & Charles, L. M. (2008). Competing in the service sector The entrepreneurial challenge.
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 7, 5.
Douglas McGregor. (1990). McGregor Theory X and Theory Y. from www.Valuemanagement.net.
15 ..2554.
Franklyn, M. A., S. (1992). Using Strategy Maps to drive Performance. CMA Management, 80, 22, 5.
Kalevi, K. & Jaana, S. (2008). Strategic options-based framework for management of dynamic
capabilities in manufacturing firms. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management.
Bradford: Vol.18. 8. 966.
Kongkiti, P., & Repee, K. (2007). Competitive priorities of manufacturing firms in Thailand. Industrial
Management & Data Systems, 107, 979-996.
[76]

Laura, D. G. (2007). A Quantitative Analysis of Strategic and Financial Changes in Small Private Higher
Education Institutions. Copyright by Grandgenett, Laura DeLegge.
Lawson, P.W. (2008). Scorecard Best Practice: Design Implementation, and Evaluation. Working Paper
Brisbane: Griffith University.
Maurice, E. S. (2008). Better Competition Advocacy. St. Johns Low Review, 82, 951, 86..
Michael, A. G., Larry, D. G., & M Cernusca. (2005). Competitive market analysis of eatern redcedar.
Forest Products Journal, 55, 58, 8.
Mohammad, R. H., & Hassan, F. (2008). The Role of Knowledge Management for Achieving to WorldClass Manufacturing. Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 14, 210, 8.
Philip, R. W., & Stuart, M. S. (2008). Hybrid strategic thinking in deregulated retail energy markets.
International Journal of Energy secto Management, 2, 218.
Ricks Warren. (2004). Benefits of domestic vertical and horizontal strategic alliances to compete with
international cartels and the Japanese keiretsu. The Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
8, 52, 6.
Ruggles, R. (2007). What is knowledge management (KM) . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Sriram, l., & Raghuraman, S. (2008). Commodity Watch.
Vittal, S. A, & Shivraj, K. (2010). Modeling enablers for successful KM implementation. Journal of
Knowledge Management. Kempston.de.

[77]