# Supply Chain Management Maturity and Business Performance: The Balanced Scorecard Perspective
## 5 Results
### Partial-Least-Squares Structural Equation Modelling
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Construct Items** & **Loadings** & **Mean** & **SDEV** & **T Statistics** & **VIF** \\ \hline FOND & & & & & \\ FOND1 & 0.644 & 3.84 & 1.145 & 9.247 & 1.268 \\ FOND2 & 0.763 & 4.11 & 1.012 & 13.567 & 1.631 \\ FOND3 & 0.689 & 4.22 & 0.879 & 11.333 & 1.400 \\ FOND4 & 0.745 & 3.83 & 1.157 & 11.658 & 1.578 \\ FOND5 & 0.795 & 4.31 &.836 & 14.275 & 1.677 \\ STRUCT & & & & & \\ STRUCT1 & 0.817 & 3.71 & 1.228 & 14.963 & 2.396 \\ STRUCT2 & 0.878 & 3.50 & 1.222 & 12.432 & 2.994 \\ STRUCT3 & 0.786 & 3.86 & 1.143 & 13.372 & 2.042 \\ STRUCT4 & 0.750 & 4.14 & 1.063 & 11.707 & 1.869 \\ STRUCT5 & 0.848 & 3.67 & 1.296 & 12.638 & 2.509 \\ VISION & & & & & \\ VISION1 & 0.763 & 4.44 & 1.034 & 8.555 & 2.132 \\ VISION2 & 0.832 & 4.42 & 0.958 & 13.668 & 2.271 \\ VISION3 & 0.885 & 4.50 & 0.820 & 15.890 & 3.386 \\ VISION4 & 0.845 & 3.66 & 1.347 & 12.116 & 2.936 \\ VISION5 & 0.816 & 3.43 & 1.348 & 11.799 & 2.534 \\ INTEGR & & & & & \\ INTEGR1 & 0.743 & 4.15 & 0.979 & 13.595 & 1.617 \\ INTEGR2 & 0.794 & 3.91 & 1.053 & 12.980 & 1.880 \\ INTEGR3 & 0.812 & 3.81 & 1.113 & 16.383 & 2.237 \\ INTEGR4 & 0.866 & 3.52 & 1.289 & 18.992 & 3.654 \\ INTEGR5 & 0.855 & 3.16 & 1.274 & 15.795 & 3.160 \\ DYNAM & & & & & \\ DYNAM1 & 0.600 & 3.99 & 1.070 & 7.835 & 1.310 \\ DYNAM2 & 0.775 & 4.40 & 0.836 & 14.519 & 1.747 \\ DYNAM3 & 0.857 & 4.16 & 0.978 & 17.372 & 2.383 \\ DYNAM4 & 0.896 & 3.91 & 1.105 & 20.183 & 3.378 \\ DYNAM5 & 0.884 & 3.87 & 1.094 & 19.458 & 3.193 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Source: Author’s work using Adanco 2.3.2.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Supply chain management maturity items loadings. threshold value of 0.50, and the VIF values are lower than the recommended threshold of 3.3, except VISION3, INTEGR4, and DYNA4, which are greater than the recommended threshold. However, the VIF values deviate moderately from the threshold and could be considered acceptable. Table 3 reveals the factor loadings for the FINANCE, CUSTOM, INNO_LEARN, and INT_PROC items used in the second construct of BSC as a dependent variable. As can be seen, the loadings for the FINANCE construct range from 0.894 to 0.917, CUSTOM loadings range from 0.818 to 0.886, INNO_LEARN loadings range from 0.490 to 0.860, and INT_PROC factor loadings range from 0.703 to 0.896. All items are over the recommended threshold value of 0.50, except INNO_LEARN with a loading of 0.490, whereas FINANC1, FINANC3, FINANC4, CUSTOM1, CUSTOM2, INT_PROC3, and INT_PROC4 had values greater than the recommended threshold of 3.3. The loadings for TECH_DYN range from 0.733 to 0.889, whereas the loadings for the STATE construct range from 0.671 to 0.746 (Table 4). As can be seen, most loadings are \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Construct Items** & **Loadings** & **Mean** & **SDEV** & **T Statistics** & **VIF** \\ \hline TECH\_DYN1 & 0.861 & 4.04 & 1.120 & 13.002 & 2.008 \\ TECH\_DYN2 & 0.889 & 3.60 & 1.114 & 14.158 & 2.220 \\ TECH\_DYN3 & 0.733 & 4.17 & 0.952 & 7.835 & 1.318 \\ STATE1 & 0.746 & 3.34 & 1.316 & 3.770 & 1.539 \\ STATE2 & 0.671 & 3.52 & 1.237 & 2.321 & 1.501 \\ STATE3 & 0.669 & 1.95 & 1.226 & 2.964 & 1.254 \\ STATE4 & 0.708 & 2.16 & 1.317 & 1.744 & 2.268 \\ STATE5 & 0.733 & 1.87 & 1.026 & 3.339 & 2.200 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Source: Author’s work, which was produced using Adanco 2.3.2.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Industry characteristics items loadings.