Domestic SMEs play a key role in production and employment, accounting for 98.9% of total enterprises, 74.4% of employment, 50.8% of production, and 49.0% of value added (as of 2016). However, they are faced with difficulties of survival because of continuous decrease in profitability, shortage of funds and manpower, insufficient accumulation of technology, minimum wage increase, and 52-hour workweek. In order for SMEs to continue to develop in such a difficult environment, we must constantly innovate our organization by making full use of our knowledge, information, experience and ability. To do this, CEO (management) leadership is very important to ensure that the best people are focused on the organizational innovation and management performance without moving the company. In this study, we wanted to establish empirically how the newly emerging compassionate rationalism leadership of SMEs business managers affected the innovation activities and management performance of companies. Research has shown that management’s compassionate rationalism leadership has a positive and significant causal relationship with the innovation activities and management performance of the enterprise. Therefore, SMEs managers need to learn the bottom eight strategic factors of compassionate rationalism leadership and use them strategically to make efforts to create positive emotions for the organization so that members can be immersed in innovative activities and management performance creation.

“Yangliping TECH”is known as “the first public company of performing arts industry in new third board stick market”, Yang liping is the most eye-catching golden signboard. Although the stock market brief mentioned that the company's main source of revenue is the imaging series of commercial products, and its boutique hotel operation and other industrial chains. But we also know that the biggest risk for public companies is over-reliance on “Yang liping's personal brand”. At present, it seems that Yang liping company is in a good rising period in China's performing arts market and new three board stock market, and its development space is still large. We don't know how far it will go. If Yang liping company can develop in a scientific and sustainable way, it is bound to explore an effective market operation mechanism. This is what China's performing arts industry should learn from.

급격하게 변화하는 업무 상황에 적응하는 개인의 능력을 뜻하는 적응수행은 불확실하고 변화무쌍한 최근의 경영환경을 고려할 때 그 중요성이 나날이 커지고 있다. 본 연구는 적응수행에 영향을 미치는 환경적 요인과 개인적 특성의 상호연관성을 밝히고자 하였으며, 특히 환경적 변인으로 조직혁신풍토와 변혁적 리더십, 개인 수준의 변인으로 주도성이 적응수행에 미치는 영향력과 이 과정 속에서 해당 변인간의 관계를 검증하고자 하였다. 이를 위해 국내 다양한 산업에 종사하는 조직 구성원으로부터 데이터를 수집하여 최종적으로 223개의 자료를 분석하였다. 그 결과, 변혁적 리더십과 주도성이 적응수행에 직접적인 영향을 미치는 것으로 확인되었다. 또한 조직혁신풍토와 적응수행간의 관계에서 주도성의 완전매개효과가 검증되었고, 변혁적 리더십과 적응수행간의 관계에서 주도성의 부분매개효과가 검증되었다. 이러한 결과와 함께 다양한 이론적, 실무적 시사점을 제시하였다.

The purpose of this research was to test the effects of entrepreneurship and technological innovation capability on new product performance in SMEs and the moderating role of absorption capability. For this study, Research data were collected through questionnaire instruments from the sample of 374 employees in 18 SMEs of metropolitan area. The 336 sample was selected and analyzed by hierarchical regression technique. The results showed that entrepreneurship and technological innovation capability had a positive effect on new product performance. And also found out absorption capability had the moderate roles between all the three factors of technological innovation capability factors and new product performance, but not between all the three factors of entrepreneurship and new product performance. With the research results, the implications for technical management of SMEs were discussed, and the directions for future research were suggested.

The purpose of this research was to test the effects of technological innovation capability and technology commercialization capability on new product performance of the companies in electronics industry and the moderating role of perceived usefulness of government R&D support. For this study, Research data were collected through questionnaire instruments from the sample of 346 employees in 17 electronics companies of metropolitan area. The 305 sample was selected and analyzed by hierarchical regression technique. The results showed that technological innovation capability and technology commercialization capability had a positive effect on new product performance. And also found out perceived usefulness of government R&D support had the moderate roles between only technical innovation system our of three technological innovation capability factors and new product performance, and also between only manufacturing capability our of three technological commercialization capability factors and new product performance. With the research results, the implications for electronics company were discussed, and the directions for future research were suggested.

본 연구는 자원기반이론 관점에서 우리나라 중소기업의 기술협력 성과를 살펴보고자 하였다. 해당 이론적 관점에서는 기술협력의 동기가 기술적 자원의 보완성이 강조된다는 점을 고려하여 분석 대상의 기업군을 기술수준에 따라 하이테크(high technology), 미드테크(medium technology), 로우테크(low technology) 등 세 단계로 구 분하였으며, 기술협력 파트너를 기술적 자원 및 역량을 기준으로 대기업, 중소기업, 대학, 연구기관으로 구분하고, 각각의 협력관계에 따른 혁신성과를 분석하였다. 분석 결과, 우리나라 중소기업의 기술수준별 그리고 협력 파트너에 따라 기술협력 성과에 미치는 영향은 상이한 것으로 나타났다. 특히 하이테크 중소기업의 경우 대학과의 협력에서 긍정적으로 효과를 확인할 수 있었음에 반해 미드테크의 경우 대학과 대기업과의 협력, 로우테크의 대학과 대기업은 물론 중소기업과의 협력에서도 유의한 성과를 보였다. 비록 기술 수준별로 기술협력의 유의한 성과가 선호체계를 가진다는 흥미로운 결과에도 불구 하고 본 논문이 단년도 횡단면 자료에 근거하고 있는 점을 고려하여 해석 될 필요가 있 다

The restaurant industry is more engaged in innovation now. Many entrepreneurs realized that the restaurant sector faces major challenging market environments: changing needs of customers, high competition, low barriers to entry, high labor costs, and innovation technology. The market orientation drives business learning about customers. Engaged customers can assist firms to improve performance by getting involved with the firm’s product innovation. Innovation could help restaurants to improve the products and service quality, cut costs, increase sales and profits; it is the basic condition for the survival of restaurant entrepreneurs. However, studies about how the innovation affects restaurant performance were still limited to describe the overview of products innovation process (Ivkov et al., 2016). Resource-based theory takes the internal resources and capabilities of a firm as valuable sources of competitive advantage. How to combine internal resources and quickly respond to market needs to create performance of innovation entrepreneurship that still unclear and worth exploring in depth discussion. Based on the above, This study personal interview with twelve restaurant entrepreneur, government experts and scholars reveal how absorptive capacity could strengthen the link between positional advantage and innovation for entrepreneurship restaurants with the influence of customer engagement. The positional advantages can make enterprise differentiate with their competitors, that including entrepreneurial orientation, human capital and market orientation (Jogaratnam,2017). The experts believe that innovation entrepreneurs need to adopt an open mind, seek new opportunities in the catering market, acquire or develop new technologies and launching new products / services in the market, using high returns and high risk strategies in search of success in market. Training and educating team members are effective way to improve their innovation entrepreneurship.

Introduction This research was conducted in order to examine the influence of corporate innovation such as product innovation and profit model innovation towards sustainable competitive advantage and marketing performance. In B2B, the two biggest concerns of a manufacturing company are to provide products suitable for customer's business and to secure profitability of company business. Especially in an age when customer needs are diverse, companies need a lot of investment and effort to differentiate their products. Even though it is doubtful whether products that achieve such differentiation can achieve successful business results. Unless it is a monopoly, there are limitations in satisfying individualized and customized market trends and diverse customer needs with the technology and product competitiveness of companies alone. Therefore, corporate innovation requires a comprehensive approach in terms of product innovation and business model innovation. And product innovation and continuous profit model innovation for improving the company's profit is a very important factor. In order to achieve these two core values, the company conducts efficient operations internally to continuously develop products that meet customer needs and to conduct close customer relationship management to maintain a firm brand position in the market. Therefore, this study is designed to investigate how the innovation efforts of companies in B2B affect the sustainable competitive advantage development and market performance. Unlike previous researches on corporate innovation which included product innovation, this study included profit model innovation as corporate innovation to investigate the effects of profit model innovation on the actual marketing performance of firms. In addition, it is distinguished from the existing customer-oriented competitive advantage study (Porter, 1985) by studying the effects of sustainable competitive advantage on market performance by defining and applying sustainable competitive advantage variables from the perspective of internal marketing efforts. Theoretical Development Firms' needs and efforts for technological innovation and product innovation are very important for sustainable growth through securing economic benefits of firms (Hauser et al., 2006, Dave et al., 2013). In order to achieve competitive advantage (low cost, product differentiation), companies pursued technological innovation and product innovation through R & D investment. However, in terms of providing a total solution that satisfies the needs of various customers in the global competitive environment and improving the profitability of the company, it is difficult to explain the innovation area of the company only by technological innovation and product innovation. Therefore, in this study, it defines the corporate innovation including the business model innovation such as profit model from the perspective of the system operation to the innovation area of the company according to the claim that the business model mediates the firm and business performance (Markides, 2006; Baden -Fuller & Haefliger, 2013). And using sustainable competitive advantage in terms of product leadership, operational excellence, and customer intimacy, this study analyzes the effects of these firm innovations on the sustainable competitive advantage and business performance. Corporate innovation is broadly categorized into three categories: process innovation, product innovation, and operational management innovation (Lee et al., 2013). And the Oslo manual classifies them as product innovation, process innovation, marketing innovation, and organizational innovation (OECD, 2005). In the past, where product-centered markets and external competition were stable, changes in product technology made business models largely changeable, so corporate innovation could be described as technological innovation and product innovation. However, the development of advanced technologies such as information and communication technology (ICT) requires that the field of corporate innovation activities be analyzed from a new business model perspective. This is because existing product innovation, process innovation, marketing innovation, and organizational innovation are insufficient to explain the birth and change of new business types occurring in the same industry. In addition, we can find examples of business model innovation as a type of corporate innovation in existing studies (Christensen, 1997; Christensen and Raynor, 2003; Markides, 2006; Taylor et al., 2012). Therefore, this study reflects these changes and includes business model innovation such as profit model as a type of corporate innovation. In addition, Porter (1985)'s traditional competitive strategy (low cost, product differentiation) has limitations in evaluating the impact of corporate innovation and analyzing its relationship with business performance. In order to compensate for this, we introduce three main variables: product leadership, operational excellence, and customer intimacy, which can segment the value domain of sustainable competitive advantage and measure strategic performance capability, as a sustainable competitive advantage (Treacy and Wiersema, 1995). Research Design In previous researches, it has focused on technological innovation and product innovation to achieve the competitive advantage of product for better business performance in competitive market. However, these studies do not adequately suggest corporate innovation direction for corporate’s sustainable growth in complex and evolving business environment. Therefore, this study redefines the domain of corporate innovation and sustainable competitive advantage and then analyzes the effect of corporate innovation and sustainable competitive advantage on business performance. The hypothesis to be analyzed through the research model is as follows: H1. Product innovation has a positive impact on sustainable competitive advantage. H2. Profit model innovation in Business model has a positive impact on sustainable competitive advantage. H3. Sustainable competitive advantage has a positive impact on marketing performance. H4. Product innovation has a positive impact on marketing performance. H5. Profit model innovation in Business model has a positive impact on marketing performance. <Figure 1 research model> To analyze this hypothesis, it surveyed 300 machinery manufacturing companies producing intermediate goods in Korea through questionnaires with 5 point Likert scale. And the results were analyzed using SPSS (ver. 24.0) and AMOS (ver. 24.0). Result and Conclusion The findings show that profit model innovation of business model has a positive effect on the sustainable competitive advantage. However, product innovation has only a positive effect on product leadership of sustainable competitive advantage. And the sustainable competitive advantage has had a positive impact on market performance. Profit model innovation of business model also has an impact on market performance but product innovation has not a positive effect on market performance. It is meaningful that the company has confirmed the importance of the profit model innovation as well as the existing product innovation as the corporate innovation direction to pursue continuously. A practical implication of this study is that rapid technological advances, market changes, and globalization, as Bashir and Verma (2017) argue, should change profit model of a business model in order to maintain a sustainable competitive advantage in B2B of manufacturing industry. In order to maintain a sustainable competitive advantage, business model innovation with a clear profit model is highly needed as a new management strategy for the future. The theoretical implication of this study is that the existing studies on corporate innovation are focused on technology innovation, and the effect of product innovation on business performance is relatively small. In particular, empirical studies on the effect of business profit model innovation on marketing performance were not enough. Therefore, it can be said that the fact that product innovation and business profit model innovation have an influence on market performance expands empirical research.

Despite a growing interest of value capture in the phenomenon of open innovation (OI), empirical evidence documenting the link between new product development (NPD), OI practices, and market performance is scarce. Drawing on organizational learning, NPD, and OI literature stream, this paper conceptualizes a framework in which open product innovation (OPI) practices are disentangled into two types: pre-launch OPI (which occurs before a new product is launched) and post-launch OPI (which occurs after a new product is launched). Specific types of OPI practices – technology in-licensing (i.e., pre-launch OPI) and product upgrades (i.e., post-launch OPI) – during the NPD process are expected to influence market performance of new products independently and interactively. This paper empirically analyzes the secondary data related to product innovation and market performance of 536 mobile games that were developed and launched by 265 local and global firms in South Korea. The results support hypotheses and indicate that NPD projects that engage in technology in-licensing by both local and global firms lead to better market performance than NPD projects that do not engage in. Furthermore, the more product upgrades that NPD projects employ during product life cycle, the better market performance. Finally, the involvement of active product upgrades strengthens market performance of global NPD projects that develop new products internally. The results regarding the role of pre-launch and post-launch OPI mechanisms contribute to research on OI and NPD, and also inform managers as to what product innovation practices are recommended to improve market performance of NPD projects.

Introduction The trade-off between cost leadership strategy and differentiation strategy is of importance and presents a key challenge to exporters because it is intrinsically related to innovation (Gebauer, 2008; O’Cass et al., 2014). Nevertheless, resources are limited, and firms must make choices in their allocation and determine the extent to which they will emphasize one strategy over another (Danneels, 2007; Lant, Milliken, & Batra, 1992). Although the individual roles of product strategies or innovation capabilities on export performance have attracted considerable attention (e.g., Hortinha, Lages, & Lages, 2011; Lages, Silva, & Styles, 2009), few studies have assessed their integrating impact - that is, the difference in the strengths of the relationships between cost leadership or differentiation strategy and innovation. Drawing on resource based view, we examine how innovation capabilities related with the relationship between cost leadership and differentiation strategies and exporters’ performance. Thus, we consider the moderating role of two distinct capabilities - exploratory innovation and exploitative innovation - on the relationships between product strategies and export performance. Exploratory innovation includes activities aimed to enter new product-market domains, while exploitative innovation activities improve existing product-market domains (He & Wong, 2004). The objectives of this study are to explore (1) impacts of cost leadership strategy and differentiation strategy on export performance, (2) moderating effects of exploitative and exploratory innovation capability on the relationship between product strategy and export performance, and (3) these relationships in the context of a comparison of Korean and Japanese exporters. Most empirical research about product strategy and innovation capability has been conducted in Western-based context. This means that managers operating in non-Western business environments have only Western-based empirical evidence to help them develop strategies for managing levels of market orientation in their international businesses. However, non-Western business cultures may be different from those found in Western firms, and therefore generalizing studies of exporting behavior from Western to non-Western business contexts may be misleading. Indeed, it is noted that there is a need for more studies into the transferability of Western research to the Asian business setting (Ambler, Styles, & Xiucun, 1999). Thus, in order to fill this imbalance, the purpose of this study is to attempt to investigate product strategy and innovation capability of Korean and Japanese firms in international markets. Conceptual background Porter (1980) argues that a firm can achieve a higher level of performance over a rival in one of two ways: either it can supply an identical product or service at a lower cost, or it can supply a product or service that is differentiated in such a way that the customer is willing to pay a price premium that exceeds the additional cost of the differentiation. A cost leadership strategy is designed to produce goods or services more cheaply than competitors by stressing efficient scale of operation. When a firm designs, produces, and sells a comparable product more efficiently than its competitors as well as its market scope is industry-wide, it means that the firm is carrying out the cost leadership strategy successfully (Campbell-Hunt, 2000). Thus, the primary thing for a firm seeking competitively valuable way by reducing cost is to concentrate on maintaining efficiency through all activities in order to effectively control every expense and find new sources of potential cost reduction (Dess & Davis, 1984). The differentiation strategy provides value to customers with the unique attributes or perceptions of uniqueness, and characteristics of a firm’s product other than cost. The firm pursuing differentiation seeks to be unique in its industry along some dimension that is valued by customers, which means investing in product R&D and marketing (Porter, 1980). Rather than cost reduction, a firm using the differentiation needs to concentrate on investing in and developing such things that are distinguishable and customers will perceive (Gebauer, 2008). Overall, the essential success factor of differentiation in terms of strategy implementation is to develop and maintain innovativeness, creativeness, and organizational learning within a firm (Dess & Davis, 1984; O’Cass et al., 2014; Porter, 1985). A firm’s ability to compete in the long term may lie in its ability to integrate product strategy and its existing capabilities, while at the same time developing fundamentally new ones (Lavie & Rosenkopf, 2006). Simultaneous investments in the exploitation of existing product innovation capabilities and the exploration of new ones may help create a competitive advantage (Soosay & Hyland, 2008). Organizational learning represents the development of knowledge that influences behavioral changes and leads to enhanced performance (Crossan, Lane, & White, 1999; Fiol & Lyles, 1985). Product innovation is a tool for organizational learning and, thus, a primary means of achieving its strategic renewal (Danneels, 2002; Dougherty, 1992; O’Cass et al., 2014). Exploration pertains more to new knowledge - such as the search for new products, ideas, markets, or relationships; experimentation; risk taking; and discovery - while exploitation pertains more to using the existing knowledge and refining what already exists; it includes adaptation, efficiency, and execution (March, 1991). Exploration and exploitation compete for the same resources and efforts in the firm. With a focus on exploring potentially valuable future opportunities, the firm decreases activities linked to improving existing competences (Levinthal & March, 1993; March, 1991). In contrast, with a focus on exploiting existing products and processes, the firm reduces development of new opportunities. However, firms must develop both exploratory and exploitative capabilities because returns from exploration are uncertain, often negative, and attained over the long run, while exploitation generates more positive, proximate, and predictable returns (Levinthal & March, 1993; March, 1991; Özsomer & Gençtürk, 2003). Researchers haveshown that both types of learning are essential to enhancing firm performance (Leonard-Barton, 1992; March, 1991). In this study, we use exploration and exploitation to describe two innovation-related capabilities that are critical elements on the relationship between product strategies and export performance. Hypotheses A firm that successfully pursues a cost leadership strategy emphasizes “aggressive construction of efficient-scale facilities, vigorous pursuit of cost reductions from experience, tight cost and overhead control, avoidance of marginal customer accounts, and cost minimization in areas like R&D, service, sales force, advertising, and so on” (Porter, 1980: 35). In addition, with a cost leadership strategy, firms focus on reducing costs through operational efficiency. The associated positional advantage is a cost advantage pertaining to the firms’ value offering and is based on the product’s price–perceived value proposition in the export market. On the other hand, a firm that pursues a differentiation strategy may attempt to create a unique image in the minds of customers that its products are superior to those of its competitors (Miller, 1988). Moreover, a firm may pursue a differentiation strategy by creating a perception in the minds of customers that its products possess characteristics that are unique from those of its competitors in terms of differences in design, physical attributes/features, and durability (Gebauer, 2008). Differentiation strategy aims to generate more outwardly focused product innovations that offer customers product differences that shape a distinctive value offering that is more responsive to their needs (Hughes, Martin, Morgan, & Robson, 2010; O’Cass et al., 2014). The associated positional advantage is a product or market differentiation advantage pertaining to the superior brand, quality, design, and product features that differentiate the firms’ value proposition from its competitors in the export market. Firms that position their products in a manner that co-aligns with their “home country competitive advantages” will, on average, tend to perform better than those that do not. The impact of home-country advantages is lessening over time as firms develop firm-specific global core competencies to replace home-country advantages. The corporate climate in Japanese firms is characterized by worker participation and long term employment. These factors not only tend to increase costs, but also may have a positive effect on product quality through better employee motivation and more knowledgeable workers. Japanese firms have the highest labor and taxation costs and a demand base that is more quality than price sensitive. This creates a home-country environment that favors higher quality. Therefore, Japanese firms most easily achieved a strategic fit with their home country business environment by pursuing a differentiation strategy. On the other hand, Korean firms tend to focus innovation on small, incremental improvements in process and product development, exploiting experience effects. Over time, this focus results in higher quality for Korean products and lower costs, thus creating the potential for Korean firms to use a cost leadership strategy. Moreover, Korea’s capital markets (which offer inexpensive capital below short-term market rates), a demand base that is price sensitive, and the Korean corporate culture’s emphasis on low prices all contribute to an environment favoring lower cost and lower price strategy. Hypothesis 1: Cost leadership strategy pursued by Korean firms is positively associated with export performance, compared to Japanese firms. Hypothesis 2: Differentiation strategy pursued by Japanese firms is positively associated with export performance, compared to Korean firms. From the generation of new ideas through to the launch of a new product, exploration and exploitation play a vital role in product innovation (Rothaermel & Deeds, 2004). Organizations can decide to use existing organizational competences to realize short-term results, or create new competences that may foster the development of innovations in the longer term (Atuahene-Gima, 2005). Both types of capabilities are considered to be dynamic in nature (Winter, 2003), given that their purpose is to transform existing resources into new functional competences that provide a better match for the firm's environment (Voss, Sirdeshmukh, & Voss, 2008). Although both exploitative and exploratory capabilities related to cost leadership and differentiation strategies, because of those different roles of capabilities in innovation process, the effects of those innovation capabilities on the relationship between product strategy and export performance might be different. In case of cost leadership strategy, firms focus on using and developing existing capabilities, promoting improvements in existing components and building on existing technological elements (Benner & Tushman, 2003; Rust et al., 2002). Similarly, exploitative innovation is aimed at improving existing product-market domains. The cost leadership strategy creates value through existing competences or competences that have been slightly modified (Voss et al., 2008). It promotes a routine-based and repetitive approach to organizational changes (Rust et al., 2002). Because exploitative innovation builds on existing knowledge and extends existing products and services for existing customers (Soosay & Hyland, 2008), exploitative capabilities helps firms pursuing cost leadership strategy to reap the benefits of improvement they make to their products and to continue making incremental improvements (Brucks, Zeithaml, & Naylor, 2000), which are designed to allow the firm to continue its superior performance (Griffin, 1997). Compared to cost leadership strategy, differentiation strategy is characterized by radical change, risk and experimentation and that allows for the creation of new methods, relationships, and products. Because exploration focuses mainly on trying to create variety, to adapt and hence exploit ever-decreasing windows of opportunity (Soosay & Hyland, 2008), this capability is more beneficial to the kind of product innovativeness to the firm (Augusto & Coelho, 2009). When exporters pursue differentiation strategy for acquiring new knowledge and developing new products and services, exploratory capability helps to engage new insight into the design of new features and benefits of a given product, that product is guaranteed to contain new ideas (Cho & Pucik, 2005; Yalcinkaya et al., 2007). In contrast with exploitation aimed at improving existing product-market domains, explorative innovation requires fundamental changes in the way an organization operates and represents a clear departure from existing practices (Menguc & Auh, 2006). Hypothesis 3: Exploitative innovation capability moderates the relationship between cost leadership strategy and export performance positively. Hypothesis 4: Exploratory innovation capability moderates the relationship between differentiation strategy and export performance positively. Results This study conducted survey data from Korean and Japanese exporters, regarding to product strategy, innovation capability, and export performance. 223 usable questionnaires were obtained in Korea, and 124 usable questionnaires were obtained in Japan. With regard to number of years of international experience, international experience averaged 15 (S.D. = 23.54) for Korean samples and 37.95 (S.D. = 21.90) for Japanese samples. In addition, export intensity by total sales over exporting sales averaged 15 (S.D. = 23.54) for Korean samples and 36.91 (S.D. = 26.15) for Japanese samples. Using survey data from Korean and Japanese exporters, the findings indicate that cost leadership strategy enhance export performance for Korean firms. On the other hand, for Japanese firms, differentiation strategy is more related on export performance positively. Moreover, exploitative innovation capability strengthens the relationship between cost leadership strategy and export performance, while exploratory innovation capability enhances the link between differentiation strategy and export performance for both Korean and Japanese firms. Discussion Focusing on product strategy through the application of the RBV has provided theoretical insights as well as empirical evidence as to which capabilities are required to achieve these critical product strategy outcomes. The support from this study provides further evidence of the usefulness of applying the RBV to the export setting and should encourage researchers to examine the other aspects of export strategy. Based on organizational learning perspective, in addition, this study found that exploratory and exploitative innovation capability are essential to the firm because they act as vehicles for renewing product strategy to achieve superior export performance. By considering product strategy with exploration and exploitation simultaneously, we present a new perspective of the roles of these product strategies in the development of firms’ innovation capabilities. Our results indicate that cost leadership and differentiation strategy are pivotal in ensuring a proper balance between exploratory and exploitative innovations. Furthermore, this study found that different effects of product strategies on export performance in line with home country competitive advantages. Understanding the nature of marketing strategies employed by Korean and Japanese firms as well as its different effects may provide a useful reference point for exporters from other emerging countries in Asia. One of the main implications for managers is that both exploratory and exploitative product competences should consider in parallel when developing product strategy. The findings underscore the need for managers to invest in cost leadership and differentiation strategy to ensure the development of exploration and exploitation. Therefore, resource allocation decisions should, consider the firm's needs for innovation capabilities and, on the other hand, be guided by the firm’s product strategy. Exporters operate in highly complex environments, characterized by high levels of technological and market uncertainties and highly diverse and dispersed customers (Kleinschmidt et al., 2007; Mohr & Sarin, 2009). Therefore, in addition to the product strategy toward the development of innovations using state-of-the-art technologies, managers of these firms need a similarly strong focus on understanding both current and potential exporting markets. By acknowledging the need for product strategy, managers can ensure the balanced innovation capabilities.

융⋅복합 제품의 확산, 디지털 기술의 발전과 고도화, 제품수명주기의 단축, 지식원천의 다양화 등 경영환경의 급격한 변화로 인하여 기업은 내부 자원만을 이용한 혁신으로 경쟁에 대처하기 어려운 상황에 놓이게 되었다. 특히, 중소기업은 자체 기술개발의 한계와 자원의 제약으로 인해 환경변화에 신속하게 대처하기가 더욱 어렵다. 기업이 제품과 시장에서 지위를 강화하기 위해서는 혁신에 필요한 아이디어나 기술 등을 외부에서 조달하고 내부의 자원들도 외부와 공유하며 새로운 제품과 서비스를 개발해야만 한다. 기업이 기업 내부와 외부로의 지식흐름을 활용하여 내부 혁신성과를 높이고 혁신의 외부 활용시장을 확대하여 기업의 가치를 높이는 개방형 혁신 패러다임은 여전히 유용한 혁신 전략이 될 수 있는 이유이다. 개방형 혁신에 관한 다양한 연구들이 진행되었지만, 중소기업의 개방형 혁신의 선행요인과 기업성과를 하나의 연구모형으로 분석하여 개방형 혁신에 대한 심층적인 이해를 제공한 연구는 부족하다. 또한 개방형 혁신의 선행요인 연구에서 그 중요성에도 불구하고 충분하게 검증되지 않았던 기업가 지향성과 개방적 조직문화에 대해 그 영향을 실증적으로 확인할 필요가 있다. 본 연구는 중소기업의 기업가 지향성과 개방적 조직문화가 개방형 혁신에 미치는 영향을 검토하고, 기업가 지향성, 개방적 조직문화, 개방형 혁신이 기업성과에 미치는 직⋅간접적 영향을 개방형 혁신의 매개효과를 중심으로 분석한다. 실증분석을 위해 우리나라 상장기업들과 외부감사기업들 중 종업원 100인 이상 5,000명 이하 제조기업을 대상으로 설문조사를 진행하였으며, 283개의 유효한 응답결과에 대해 구조방정식 모형을 이용하여 연구모형과 가설을 검증했다. 실증분석 결과는 첫째, 기업가 지향성은 개방형 혁신과 기업성과에 긍정적인 영향을 준다. 둘째, 기업의 개방적 조직문화는 개방형 혁신에는 긍정적인 영향을 나타내지만 기업성과에 미치는 직접적 영향은 통계적으로 유의하지 않는 것으로 나타냈다. 셋째, 개방형 혁신은 기업성과에 긍정적인 영향을 나타내는 것으로 확인되었다. 넷째, 개방형 혁신은 기업가 지향성과 기업성과 사이에서 부분적으로 매개효과를 나타내며, 개방적 조직문화와 기업성과 사이에서는 완전매개 효과를 나타내었다.

국문초록：본 논문에서는 지역혁신체제 및 혁신클러스터에서 상호작용을 촉진하는 주요 주체로서의 혁신중개인과 기업의 흡수역량 및 성과 간의 연계성을 기업 차원에서 탐구한다. 대덕연구개발특구 내 기업을 대상으로 한 실증연구결과, 기업이 활용하는 혁신중개인과의 관 계는 기업의 흡수역량과 혁신 및 경영성과에 긍정적인 영향을 유의하게 미치며, 흡수역량은 이 과정에서 강력한 매개역할을 하는 것으로 나타났다. 이는 혁신중개인이 기업의 혁신과정 에서 내부 활동을 대신할 수 있는 대체자라기보다는 보완재의 역할이 크다는 증거를 의미한 다. 본 연구는 기업의 혁신과정에서 흡수역량의 선행요인으로서 혁신중개인의 역할과 중요 성에 대한 이해에 기여한다.

본 연구는 ICT 분야 중소기업의 외부환경 민감도와 혁신활동에 대한 조직성향 이 기업성과에 미치는 영향요인에 대해 실증분석하였다. 분석방법으로는 첫째, 탐색적 요인 분석(Exploratory Factor Analysis)을 통해 투입된 변수간의 관계성과 패턴을 파악하였고 둘 째, 요인분석에 의해 축약된 영향 요인들을 유형화하는 군집분석(Cluster Analysis)을 실시 하였다. 마지막으로 유형화된 군집들의 혁신활동과 기업성과간 구조적 관계를 규명하고자 구조방정식모형(Structural Equation Modeling)을 이용하여 분석을 실시하였다. 본 연구는 국내 ICT분야 중소기업을 대상으로 실시한 E-연구원의 수요조사 결과 1,022부에 대해 실증 분석에 활용했다. 내⋅외부 환경에 대한 40개 투입변수에 대해 탐색적 요인분석을 실시한 결과, 총 7개의 요 인이 추출되었으며 7개의 요인을 기반으로 총 4개의 군집(n=1,022)이 형성되었다. 군집 4개 의 대해 구조방정식 모형을 활용하여 실증분석을 한 결과, 기술⋅경쟁 환경에 민감하며, 혁 신적인 조직 성향을 가진 군집1은 자체기술개발만이 기업성과에 긍정적 영향을 미치는 것으 로 나타났다. 시장 환경에 민감하며, 내부 협력적 조직 성향을 가진 군집2는 자체기술개발과 공동연구를 통해서만 기업성과에 긍정적 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 경쟁적인 환경에 민감하며, 혁신적이고 정부/관련기관과의 협력적 조직 성향을 가진 군집3은 공동연구 그리고 매개변수인 정부 지원 프로그램 활용을 통해 기업성과에 긍정적 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타 났으며, 기술도입은 기업성과에 부정적 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 개방적인 조직 성향 이 강한 군집4는 자체기술개발과 매개변수인 네트워크 활용 및 정부 지원 프로그램 활용이 기업성과에 긍정적 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 본 연구의 결과는 중소기업 혁신을 위한 전략 및 정책 수립에 유용하게 활용될 수 있을 것이다.

This study develops a framework that links commitment, relationship investment, relationship learning, functional conflict and innovation orientation to innovation. This framework has three main features. First, it examines the direct effects of commitment and relationship investment on relationship learning. Second, it examines the direct effect of relationship learning on innovation. Third, it investigates the moderating effects of functional conflict and innovation orientation on the relationship between relationship learning and innovation.

Overseas R&D subsidiaries contribute to the cross -border knowledge sourcing of MNC headquarter by providing tacit and context specific knowledge and reducing the searching cost of the headquarter

This study employs the resource-based view to understand how product strategy influence export performance. According to the organizational learning perspective, moreover, the ability to manage existing assets and capabilities and the development of new capabilities are arguably among the most relevant innovation success factors. Based on these theoretical backgrounds, a model is proposed to analyze the effects of cost leadership and differentiation strategy on export performance, as well as the moderating effects of exploitative and exploratory innovation capability. Using survey data from Korean exporters, the findings indicate that the cost leadership and differentiation strategy enhance export performance. While exploitative innovation capability strengthens the relationship between cost leadership strategy and export performance, exploratory innovation capability enhances the link between differentiation strategy and export performance. Introduction The trade-off between cost leadership strategy and differentiation strategy is of importance and presents a key challenge to exporters because it is intrinsically related to innovation (Gebauer, 2008; O’Cass et al., 2014). Nevertheless, resources are limited, and firms must make choices in their allocation and determine the extent to which they will emphasize one strategy over another (Danneels, 2007; Lant, Milliken, & Batra, 1992). Although the individual roles of product strategies or innovation capabilities on export performance have attracted considerable attention (e.g., Hortinha, Lages, & Lages, 2011; Lages, Silva, & Styles, 2009; Molina-Castillo, Jimenez-Jimenez, & Munuera-Aleman, 2011), few studies have assessed their integrating impact - that is, the difference in the strengths of the relationships between cost leadership or differentiation strategy and innovation. Drawing on resource based view, we examine how innovation capabilities related with the relationship between cost leadership and differentiation strategies and exporters’ performance. Thus, we consider the moderating role of two distinct capabilities - exploratory innovation and exploitative innovation - on the relationships between product strategies and export performance. Exploratory innovation includes activities aimed to enter new product-market domains, while exploitative innovation activities improve existing product-market domains (He &Wong, 2004). The objectives of this study are to explore (1) impacts of cost leadership strategy and differentiation strategy on export performance, (2) moderating effects of exploitative and exploratory innovation capability on the relationship between product strategy and export performance, and (3) these relationships in the context of Korean exporters. The Korean exporting firms are more concentrated on international markets because of limited size of domestic market (Nugent & Yhee, 2002). These characteristics of Korean exporters are more useful to examine the effect of product strategy and product innovation capability of firms on export performance in international markets. Conceptual Background Product Strategy and Competitive Advantage Porter (1980) argues that a firm can achieve a higher level of performance over a rival in one of two ways: either it can supply an identical product or service at a lower cost, or it can supply a product or service that is differentiated in such a way that the customer is willing to pay a price premium that exceeds the additional cost of the differentiation. A cost leadership strategy is designed to produce goods or services more cheaply than competitors by stressing efficient scale of operation. When a firm designs, produces, and sells a comparable product more efficiently than its competitors as well as its market scope is industry-wide, it means that the firm is carrying out the cost leadership strategy successfully (Campbell-Hunt, 2000). Thus, the primary thing for a firm seeking competitively valuable way by reducing cost is to concentrate on maintaining efficiency through all activities in order to effectively control every expense and find new sources of potential cost reduction (Dess & Davis, 1984). The differentiation strategy provides value to customers with the unique attributes or perceptions of uniqueness, and characteristics of a firm’s product other than cost. The firm pursuing differentiation seeks to be unique in its industry along some dimension that is valued by customers, which means investing in product R&D and marketing (Porter, 1980). Rather than cost reduction, a firm using the differentiation needs to concentrate on investing in and developing such things that are distinguishable and customers will perceive (Gebauer, 2008). Overall, the essential success factor of differentiation in terms of strategy implementation is to develop and maintain innovativeness, creativeness, and organizational learning within a firm (Dess & Davis, 1984; O’Cass et al., 2014; Porter, 1985). Innovation Capability in International Markets A firm’s ability to compete in the long term may lie in its ability to integrate product strategy and its existing capabilities, while at the same time developing fundamentally new ones (Lavie & Rosenkopf, 2006). Simultaneous investments in the exploitation of existing product innovation capabilities and the exploration of new ones may help create a competitive advantage (Soosay & Hyland, 2008). Organizational learning represents the development of knowledge that influences behavioral changes and leads to enhanced performance (Crossan, Lane, & White, 1999; Fiol & Lyles, 1985). Product innovation is a tool for organizational learning and, thus, a primary means of achieving its strategic renewal (Danneels, 2002; Dougherty, 1992; O’Cass et al., 2014). Exploration pertains more to new knowledge - such as the search for new products, ideas, markets, or relationships; experimentation; risk taking; and discovery - while exploitation pertains more to using the existing knowledge and refining what already exists; it includes adaptation, efficiency, and execution (March, 1991). Exploration and exploitation compete for the same resources and efforts in the firm. With a focus on exploring potentially valuable future opportunities, the firm decreases activities linked to improving existing competences (Levinthal & March, 1993; March, 1991). In contrast, with a focus on exploiting existing products and processes, the firm reduces development of new opportunities. However, firms must develop both exploratory and exploitative capabilities because returns from exploration are uncertain, often negative, and attained over the long run, while exploitation generates more positive, proximate, and predictable returns (Levinthal & March, 1993; March, 1991; Özsomer & Gençtürk, 2003). Researchers have shown that both types of learning are essential to enhancing firm performance (Leonard-Barton, 1992; March, 1991). In this study, we use exploration and exploitation to describe two innovation-related capabilities that are critical elements on the relationship between product strategies and export performance. International markets are turbulent and diverse with respect to customer needs, cultures, and competitiveness; therefore, innovation assumes a primary role (Kleinschmidt, De Brentani, & Salomo, 2007). Firms can leverage their innovations by securing business opportunities in those markets and thus increase their innovative capabilities (Knight & Cavusgil, 2004). Through exploratory innovation, firms develop new competences and thus enhance superior export performance by product strategies (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997). Exploitation activities are also important to exporters because they facilitate the lower-risk extension of export operations. By searching for solutions in the existent competence base, exploitative innovation increases efficiency and productivity. Accordingly, this study based on organizational learning perspective to support the idea that innovation capabilities are a vehicle for a product strategy, and achieving superior export performance. We advance the literature by allowing for a role of product strategies while also considering moderating effects of innovation capabilities. Moreover, we provide insights into how choices about emphasizing one product strategy over another relates the balance between exploration and exploitation. Hypotheses Product Strategy and Export Performance Porter’s cost leadership and differentiation strategies have been linked to the achievement of superior performance by many studies (Campbell-Hunt, 2000; Dess & Davis, 1984). A firm that successfully pursues a cost leadership strategy emphasizes “aggressive construction of efficient-scale facilities, vigorous pursuit of cost reductions from experience, tight cost and overhead control, avoidance of marginal customer accounts, and cost minimization in areas like R&D, service, sales force, advertising, and so on” (Porter, 1980: 35). A firm can, therefore, gain a competitive advantage over its rivals by having significantly lower cost structures in an industry without ignoring other areas such as product and service quality (Amoako-Gyampah & Acquaah, 2008). Thus, the maintenance of a strong competitive position for an organization pursuing a cost leadership strategy places a premium on efficiency of operations and scale economies that enable them to achieve and sustain their performance for a considerable period of time. In addition, with a cost leadership strategy, firms focus on reducing costs through operational efficiency. For example, they might exploit existing facilities and learn how to reduce costs through automation, modernization, capacity utilization, or economies of scale. Efficiency, control, planning, and variance reduction represent the key elements of a cost leadership strategy, and a typical example of a cost leadership strategy involves the implementation of an experience curve, on which cumulative production determines reductions in unit production costs. Firms engage in economies of scale and/or scope when they apply their knowledge and facilities from existing product lines to product line extensions. The associated positional advantage is a cost advantage pertaining to the firms’ value offering and is based on the product’s price–perceived value proposition in the export market. Hypothesis 1: Cost leadership strategy is positively associated with export performance. A firm that pursues a differentiation strategy may attempt to create a unique image in the minds of customers that its products are superior to those of its competitors (Miller, 1988). A firm creates these perceptions through advertising programs, marketing techniques and methods, and charging premium prices. Moreover, a firm may pursue a differentiation strategy by creating a perception in the minds of customers that its products possess characteristics that are unique from those of its competitors in terms of differences in design, physical attributes/features, and durability (Gebauer, 2008). Differentiation strategy aims to generate more outwardly focused product innovations that offer customers product differences that shape a distinctive value offering that is more responsive to their needs (Hughes, Martin, Morgan, & Robson, 2010; O’Cass et al., 2014). The associated positional advantage is a product or market differentiation advantage pertaining to the superior brand, quality, design, and product features that differentiate the firms’ value proposition from its competitors in the export market. Hypothesis 2: Differentiation strategy is positively associated with export performance. Moderating Effects of Innovation Capability From the generation of new ideas through to the launch of a new product, exploration and exploitation play a vital role in product innovation (Rothaermel & Deeds, 2004). Organizations can decide to use existing organizational competences to realize short-term results, or create new competences that may foster the development of innovations in the longer term (Atuahene-Gima, 2005). Both types of capabilities are considered to be dynamic in nature (Winter, 2003), given that their purpose is to transform existing resources into new functional competences that provide a better match for the firm's environment (Voss, Sirdeshmukh, & Voss, 2008). Although both exploitative and exploratory capabilities related to cost leadership and differentiation strategies, because of those different roles of capabilities in innovation process, the effects of those innovation capabilities on the relationship between product strategy and export performance might be different. In case of cost leadership strategy, firms focus on using and developing existing capabilities, promoting improvements in existing components and building on existing technological elements (Benner & Tushman, 2003; Rust et al., 2002). Similarly, exploitative innovation is aimed at improving existing product-market domains. The cost leadership strategy creates value through existing competences or competences that have been slightly modified (Voss et al., 2008). It promotes a routine-based and repetitive approach to organizational changes (Rust et al., 2002). Because exploitative innovation builds on existing knowledge and extends existing products and services for existing customers (Soosay & Hyland, 2008), exploitative capabilities helps firms pursuing cost leadership strategy to reap the benefits of improvement they make to their products and to continue making incremental improvements (Brucks, Zeithaml, & Naylor, 2000), which are designed to allow the firm to continue its superior performance (Griffin, 1997). Hypothesis 3: Exploitative innovation capability moderates the relationship between cost leadership strategy and export performance positively. Compared to cost leadership strategy, differentiation strategy is characterized by radical change, risk and experimentation and that allows for the creation of new methods, relationships, and products. Because exploration focuses mainly on trying to create variety, to adapt and hence exploit ever-decreasing windows of opportunity (Soosay & Hyland, 2008), this capability is more beneficial to the kind of product innovativeness to the firm (Augusto & Coelho, 2009). When exporters pursue differentiation strategy for acquiring new knowledge and developing new products and services, exploratory capability helps to engage new insight into the design of new features and benefits of a given product, that product is guaranteed to contain new ideas (Cho & Pucik, 2005; Yalcinkaya et al., 2007). In contrast with exploitation aimed at improving existing product-market domains, explorative innovation requires fundamental changes in the way an organization operates and represents a clear departure from existing practices (Menguc &Auh, 2006). Hypothesis 4: Exploratory innovation capability moderates the relationship between differentiation strategy and export performance positively. Discussion Focusing on product strategy through the application of the RBV has provided theoretical insights as well as empirical evidence as to which capabilities are required to achieve these critical product strategy outcomes. The support from this study provides further evidence of the usefulness of applying the RBV to the export setting and should encourage researchers to examine the other aspects of export strategy. Based on organizational learning perspective, in addition, this study found that exploratory and exploitative innovation capability are essential to the firm because they act as vehicles for renewing product strategy to achieve superior export performance. By considering product strategy with exploration and exploitation simultaneously, we present a new perspective of the roles of these product strategies in the development of firms’ innovation capabilities. Our results indicate that cost leadership and differentiation strategy are pivotal in ensuring a proper balance between exploratory and exploitative innovations. One of the main implications for managers is that both exploratory and exploitative product competences should consider in parallel when developing product strategy. The findings underscore the need for managers to invest in cost leadership and differentiation strategy to ensure the development of exploration and exploitation. Therefore, resource allocation decisions should, consider the firm's needs for innovation capabilities and, on the other hand, be guided by the firm’s product strategy. Exporters operate in highly complex environments, characterized by high levels of technological and market uncertainties and highly diverse and dispersed customers (Kleinschmidt et al., 2007; Mohr & Sarin, 2009). Therefore, in addition to the product strategy toward the development of innovations using state-of-the-art technologies, managers of these firms need a similarly strong focus on understanding both current and potential exporting markets. By acknowledging the need for product strategy, managers can ensure the balanced innovation capabilities.

This preliminary qualitative research investigates how stylistic innovation affects sales performance of small arts and crafts firms in business-to-business and business-to-consumer markets in Taiwan. Specifically this research examines entrepreneurial cognitive complexity, which is the cognitive structure of an entrepreneur on his or her social world, and its interplay with stylistic innovation, particularly the changes of design in appearance or symbolic meaning of products, and strategic decisions of five Taiwanese small arts and crafts firms. Applying cognitive mapping to determine the cognitive contents, structures and also their relations of the entrepreneurs in making decision related to stylistic innovation, this research examines how owners of small Taiwanese arts and crafts firms specifically seek, interpret and internalize information and knowledge on style and design in the new product development and innovation processes. Research results show that the domain specific cognitive complexity of the entrepreneur influences the selection of relevant and appropriate dimensions in stylistic innovation. Entrepreneurs’ strategic decision to target at the business-to-consumer (customer-oriented or designer-driven) or business-to-business (mainly designer-driven) markets and also the buyer-seller relationship will affect the seeking, interpretation and internalization of information and knowledge in the process of stylistic innovation. Respondents targeting at business-to-business markets tend to have a higher level of cognitive complexity, compared with those targeting at business-to-consumer markets. Research results tend to suggest that the higher level of cognitive complexity, the greater the sales turnover. Future research should determine the relationship between cognitive complexity and marketing performance.

본 연구는 기술협력의 중요한 동기인 ‘학습’ 관점에서 기업이 다양한 파트너 유형과 협력하는 것이 혁신성과에 도움이 되는지, 그리고 이 관계에서 학습에 영향을 줄 수 있는 흡수역량(absorptive capacity)과 전유성(appropriability)의 조절효과를 분석하였다. 다양한 협력 파트너와 협력하는 것은 다양한 파트너가 가진 지식, 정보를 습득한다는 점에서 혁신성과에 긍정적인 효과를 줄 것이라고 가정하였다. 또한, 학습을 촉진하는 흡수역량은 파트너 다양성과 혁신성과 간의 관계를 긍정적으로 조절하고, 보유한 기술을 보호하려는 수단인 전유성은 파트너로부터의 학습을 저해하는 요인으로 작용할 수 있기 때문에 다양한 파트너와 협력하는 제휴 포트폴리오와 혁신성과 간의 관계에서 흡수역량과 전유성의 조절효과를 분석하였다. 2010년 기술혁신조사 제조업 부문 데이터 중에서 우리나라 주력 산업인 기계⋅자동차 업종을 대상으로 실증 분석을 한 결과, 다양한 유형의 기술협력 파트너와 협력하는 것은 혁신성과에 긍정적인 영향을 주고, 전유성의 조절효과가 있는 것으로 나타났다.

연구개발의 비용과 속도가 증가하고 있는 현대의 경쟁환경에서 기술혁신을 창 출하기 위해 필요한 모든 자원 및 역량을 갖추는 것은 불가능에 가까우며 이와 같은 환경은 연구개발협력의 필요성을 강조한다. 따라서 본 논문은 지식의 보호수단인 전유성이 연구개 발협력과 그 성과물인 제품혁신성과에 어떤 영향을 미치는지 분석하였다. 동시에 이 관계를 정부 연구개발지원이 어떻게 조절하고 영향을 미치는지 탐색적으로 실증분석 하였다. 연구결과, 전유성이 연구개발협력을 경유하여 제품혁신성과에 미치는 간접효과는 정부의 재무적, 직접적, 간접적 연구개발지원 각각의 유형 모두에서 공통적인 패턴을 보였다. 전유성 이 수직적 연구개발협력을 경유하여 제품혁신성과에 미치는 조건부간접효과는 정부 연구개 발지원의 강도가 일정수준 이상에서 증가하면 할수록 그 효과 역시 증가하였다. 반면, 수평 적 연구개발협력을 경유한 조건부간접효과의 경우 모든 정부 연구개발지원 강도에서 유의하지 않았다. 혁신과 관련된 정부 연구개발지원 정책을 조절변수로 설정하여 조절된 매개분석을 수행한 다면, 정책의 유의한 정책강도 및 그에 따른 성과를 분석할 수 있다. 따라서 본 논문의 활용 은 정부 연구개발지원의 평가와 효과적인 정책수립에 기여할 것으로 판단된다.