Global Journal of Management and Business Research, A: Administration and Management, Volume 22 Issue 8

Table 5: Direct Hypotheses Testing Estimate S.E. C.R. P Result Coordination <--- Communication 0.128 0.135 0.947 0.344 Not Supported Integration <--- Communication 0.222 0.128 1.735 0.083 Not Supported Responsiveness <--- Communication 0.18 0.118 1.529 0.126 Not Supported Integration <--- Exchange 0.484 0.154 3.149 0.002 Supported Responsiveness <--- Exchange 0.245 0.146 1.681 0.093 Not Supported Efficiency <--- Communication -0.126 0.114 -1.103 0.27 Not Supported Reliability <--- Communication 0.13 0.134 0.965 0.334 Not Supported Flexibility <--- Communication -0.084 0.175 -0.481 0.631 Not Supported Efficiency <--- Exchange 0.7 0.16 4.389 *** Supported Reliability <--- Exchange 0.272 0.188 1.452 0.146 Not Supported Flexibility <--- Exchange 0.053 0.244 0.217 0.828 Not Supported Efficiency <--- Coordination 0.362 0.139 2.61 0.009 Supported Reliability <--- Coordination -0.054 0.163 -0.332 0.74 Not Supported Flexibility <--- Coordination 0.316 0.212 1.494 0.135 Not Supported Efficiency <--- Integration 0.162 0.148 1.097 0.273 Not Supported Reliability <--- Integration 0.078 0.174 0.448 0.654 Not Supported Flexibility <--- Integration 0.175 0.226 0.775 0.439 Not Supported Efficiency <--- Responsiveness -0.12 0.156 -0.769 0.442 Not Supported Reliability <--- Responsiveness 0.377 0.184 2.05 0.04 Supported Flexibility <--- Responsiveness 0.352 0.239 1.471 0.141 Not Supported *** Significant at .001 level ** Significant at .01 level NS Not Significant After doing a statistical study on the hypothesis, it was determined that the findings were statistically significant (95% confidence interval, 5,000 bootstrapping). The key details about the potential relationship routes are presented in Table 5. Some hypotheses were supported when the P value for statistical significance was used (P value 0.05), which supports the corresponding hypothesis. The other pathways showed statistically insignificant impacts, therefore their predicted linkages were unsupported. From the data in the above table, we can derive the following results - Communication do not have a positive influence on Coordination - Communication do not have a positive influence on Integration - Responsiveness do not have a positive influence on Communication - Exchange has a positive influence on Responsiveness - Exchange has a positive influence on Integration - Communication does not have a positive influence on Efficiency - Communication does not have a positive influence on Reliability - Communication does not have a positive influence on Flexibility - Exchange has a positive influence on Efficiency - Exchange does not have a positive influence on Reliability - Exchange does not have a positive influence on Flexibility - Coordination has a positive influence on Efficiency - Coordination does not have a positive influence on Reliability - Coordination does not have a positive influence on Flexibility - Integration does not have a positive influence on Efficiency - Integration does not have a positive influence on Reliability - Integration does not have a positive influence on Flexibility - Responsiveness does not have a positive influence on Efficiency - Responsiveness does not have a positive influence on Reliability - Responsiveness does not have a positive influence on Flexibility iv. The mediation tests: indirect effects using the bootstrap approach The indirect effects using the bootstrap approach (Bollen and Stine, 1990, Preacher and Hayes, 2004, Shrout and Bolger, 2002) it’s different from Baron- Kenny (1986) approach. the evidence are shows in the next Table. Impact of Exchange and Communications Technology on Firm Performance: The Mediation Effect of Supply Chain Capabilities 64 Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XXII Issue VIII Version I Year 2022 ( ) A © 2022 Global Journals