“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.

『경화연』은 18-19세기 이여진에 의해 창작된 것으로 신화적 상상력을 바탕으로 사회비판 의식과 혁신사상을 보여주는 청대의 소설이며, 중요한 유토피아 저작이다. 작품에서 소봉래산 으로 상징되는 선경 유토피아는 거시적 유토피아로, 신화세계(경화수월, 선녀)―선경―현실세 계(인연, 여자과거)의 구상을 드러내고 있으며, 해외 유토피아 섬나라들은 미시적 유토피아로 현실에 대한 비판과 이상향에 대한 갈망을 투영한 이상사회로서의 유토피아 구상을 보여준다. 『경화연』에서 다루고 있는 사회비판 의식과 혁신 사상은 여성 문제에 관한 인식, 현실정 치와 사회에 관한 인식, 과학문명에 대한 인식 등이 두드러진다. 혁신의 한계에 있어서는 소봉래산으로의 은일이라는 소극적 현실개혁의 유토피아를 제시하고 있으며, 유교사상을 바탕으로 태평성세의 대동사회 유토피아를 제시하며 복고에의 추구를 보여준다.

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.

본 연구는 바이오복지를 위한 바이오산업의 현황과 기술혁신을 위한 조세지원제도에 대하여 살펴보고 그에 따른 개선방안을 제시하고 있다. 바이오산업에서의 기술혁신은 경제 성장과 복지 확대의 선순환 구조를 구축할 수 있다. 정부는 미래성장 동력에 대한 집중적 지원제도를 통해 바이오산업분야에 대한 조세지원제도를 계속적으로 증가하고 있다. 이러한 현 상황에서 바이오산업의 현황과 기술혁신 조세지원제도에 살펴보고 그에 대한 개선안을 제시하였다는 점에서 본 연구의 의의가 있다고 할 수 있다. 본 연구에서는 바이오복지를 위한 바이오산업의 지원을 위한 조세지원제도에 대한 개선안을 제시하고 자 한다. 첫째, 연구개발비 세액공제에서 중소기업에서 중견기업으로 성장하는 중소기업에 대해 세액공제 액 감소에 대한 방지책을 마련하고 있는데 반해 중견기업이 대기업으로 성장하는 과정에서 연구개발비 세 액공제의 점진적 유예제도가 없는 실정이다. 중견기업이 중소기업보다 상대적으로 연구개발 투자가 큼에도 불구하고 세액공제 유예를 적용받지 못한다는 것은 중견기업의 대기업으로의 성장을 막는 요인이 될 수 있으며, 중견기업의 연구개발 투자 유인을 낮추는 요인으로 작용할 수 있다. 따라서 중견기업이 대기업으로 성장할 때도 세액공제에 대한 점진적 유예 제도를 두어야 한다고 생각한다. 둘째, 신성장동력·원천기술의 연구개발비 세액공제에서 현행세법에서 국내에 소재한 기관으로 한정하고 있는데, 바이오산업의 실정상 생산액의 50%이상이 수출에 해당하며 이러한 수출에 따른 안정성과 유효성 입증 절차를 위한 국외 소재 연구기관의 필요가 높은 상황에서 국외 소재 연구기관에 대한 세액공제를 인정하지 않는 것은 바이 오산업에 불리한 제도라 할 수 있다. 따라서 이러한 부분을 개선하여 국내외 소재 연구기관으로 확대하여야 할 것으로 생각된다. 본 연구의 개선안을 뒷받침 할 실증연구가 시행되지 않았다는 한계점이 있다. 이러한 부분을 보완한 후 속연구가 필요하다고 생각된다. 본 연구를 통해 바이오산업의 성장성을 높여 바이오복지가 더욱 증진되길 기대한다.

최근 글로벌 기업들은 신기술 확보를 위해 사내벤처캐피탈(Corporate Venture Capital, CVC)을 설립하여 기술벤처에 투자하고 있다. 본 연구의 목적은 CVC의 투자 포트폴리오 운영방식 차이가 모기업의 기술혁신 효과에 영향을 주는지 통계적으로 실증 분석하기 위함에 있다. 구체적으로 CVC의 ‘시드(Seed)’, ‘초기(Early)’, ‘확장(Expansion)’, ‘후기(Late)’ 4가지 투자 단계별로 투자된 금액비중에 따라 매년 투자 포트폴리오 성장잠재성과 리스크 수준이 달라진다는 것을 발견하였고, 포트폴리오의 공격적인 투자성향과 외부 파트너십이 모기업 기술 혁신효과에 미치는 영향에 대해 분석하였다. 연구를 위해 글로벌 70개 CVC들이 21년간 투자한 실적 데이터를 음이항 패널 회귀분석(negative binomial panel regression)을 통해 검증하였다. 연구의 결과, 벤처 포트폴리오내 시드/초기 단계 기업들에 투자한 금액이 클수록 기술혁신 효과는 증가하지만, 일정수준 이상부터는 오히려 효과가 감소하는 Inverted U형 관계를 확인하였다. 또한, 각 투자단계별 벤처기업들에 공동 투자한 외부 파트너 수가 포트폴리오 운영성향과 기술혁신 효과 사이의 Inverted U형 관계를 약화시키는 조절효과를 통계적으로 실증하였다. 본 논문은 기업이 투자포트폴리오를 구성할 때 투자 단계와 경과시점을 고려할 경우 투자성과를 극대화할 수 있다는 점에서 기획 담당자, 벤처 투자자, 정책 관리자 등에 시사점을 제공할 수 있다.

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

본 연구는 국내 제약 산업을 대상으로 실패경험이 기업의 혁신활동에 미치는 영향을 연구개발, 지식탐색 측면에서 탐구하였다. 기존 연구들은 실패의 원인을 규명 하거나, 감소요건에 대한 고찰위주로 연구하였으나, 실패가 기업의 혁신활동에 미치는 영향을 분석한 연구는 드물다. 본 연구는 국내 제약 산업을 대상으로 10년간의 연구기간을 설정하여 실패가 혁신활동에 미치는 영향과 이러한 혁신활동이 급진적 혁신에 미치는 영향을 종단 분석하였다. 연구결과를 요약하자면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 기업의 실패경험은 탐험적 혁신활동을 촉진시키며, 이는 재무적 여유자본의 크기에 따라 차이를 보이는 것으로 나타났다. 둘째, 기업의 실패경험은 지식탐색 측면에서 유의하지 않은 것으로 나타났다. 셋째, 기업의 탐험적 혁신활동과 지식탐색범위의 상호작용은 급진적 혁신성과와 정(+)의 관계를 가지는 것으로 나타났다. 본 연구는 실패를 부정적 견해로 바라보던 기존의 연구와는 다르게 학습과 혁신에 긍정적인 영향을 검증하여 경험적 증거를 제시 하였다는 점에서 의미가 있으며, 이러한 연구결과를 기반으로 향후 연구의 발전방향을 제시하였다.

The global apparel manufacturers have produced apparel and textiles to meet consumers’ needs. Recently, they have applied the sophisticated technologies and more effective organizational systems to improve the efficiencies in apparel product development and their applications have led to enhancement of consumers’ satisfaction (Kunz, Karpova, & Garner, 2016). In this study, we identified novel approaches of product innovation strategies including technological innovation and organizational effort which a representative mass-scale Bangladeshi apparel manufacturer, Ananta Group has practiced. For data collection, in-depth interviews were conducted with four managerial staffs who were managers and assistant managers working at the research and development (R&D), production, marketing and quality control departments in Ananta Group. The interviewees were male employees having degrees higher than bachelor’s degree in textile engineering. Their work experience years ranged from 5 to 15 years within their respective fields and their ages ranged from 28 to 55 years (m=40). Qualitative approach was used to analyze the data. It was found that Ananta Group has used innovative technologies such as advanced softwares, process systems and machineries in new product development and its organizational effort of running specialized teams of design, new product development, and marketing activities has enhanced technological innovation. These findings provide global apparel manufacturers with valuable information on how product innovation strategies for new apparel development are important and what technological approaches can be used to accomplish it.

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.

This study is one of a study of the innovation process of Co-Created Value (CCV) typed Supermarkets in Japan. The study is done through a collaboration style with Yaoko and Hallo-day, which are recognized as the most CCV typed Supermarkets in Japan for the past 6 years (The two Supermarkets are similar to Wholefoods Market and Wegmans in the U.S.). Basically, this study aims to indicate the mechanism of why these SM manage to grow continuously. The hint to finding the answer in these SM is hidden in“Highly Sticky Information (HSI)”, which is the precious information attached to these employees working in Meal Solution Space refined as “Cooking Support Corner (CSC)”. This HSI is only the source of a competitive power. In Management and Marketing study, I believe the Market Orientation (MO) and CCV is strongly related. To note, inside the company function is MO, and outside relation of the company and the consumer is defined as CCV (See Figure 1). The existing studies in this study are summarized into five directions; “Theory of Sticky Information (TSI), Service-Dominant Logic (SDL), Service-Logic (SL), CCV, and MO”. First, TSI by v. Hippel (1994) and Ogawa S. (1998) were advocated. This theory explains that the HSI is attached to people, and it is the precious information (e.g., Consumers’ needs, insights, and dissatisfaction experience in retailing) and its transfer cost is expensive. Therefore, the company must find a way to collect this precious information in low cost and smoothly absorb such information effectively in their company. In order to do so, the company needs to have a place to communicate with their customer. This lead to the incremental innovation of interactive community space within SM. Secondly, the SDL by S.L. Vargo and R.F. Lusch (2004), and the SL by C.Grönroos, (2006) were advocated. Their concept is basically common understanding of“Consumer 1)shinya.nakami182367@gmail.com Creates Context Value.”However, SDL tends to centralize the concept from the point of the goods more so compared to SL, ; SDL is based on 4Ps marketing in the U.S., whereas the SL is based on the relationship marketing and service marketing in North Europe. Third, the CCV by C.K. Prahalad & V. Ramaswamy (2004) and Muramatsu,J. (2015, 2016) were advocated. Their concept is related to the SDL and the SL. In short, their concept explains that the Value communicates and interacts with consumers and employees in the communication space (Real-Store or Virtual), then, the consumers may need to explain a bit, and finally they create the context value. This stream is the “CCV in Marketing.”And it is important that“Consumers Create Customer Experience”.Nowadays, as many may have already recognized, the CCV is closely related to “Omni-channel”phenomenon. At last, MO by K. Kohli & B.J. Jaworski (1990) and J.C. Narver & S.F. Slater (1990) were advocated. Their concept is constructed roughly in three processes. First step is to collect the customers’ needs and insights. Second step is to sharing such resource within the company. Third step is a feedback, which allows improvements and the production of goods and service to the customers. MO shows how the company understands and work with the customers’ viewpoint. In summary, TSI, SDL, SL, CCV and MO are closely linked with the concept of “Customer Satisfaction and Engagement Orientation by V. Kumar (2016)”in service marketing. And this study is very unique to connecting CCV and MO based upon“TSI”in Japanese CCV typed SM, using not only quantitative, but also in qualitative survey. Next, the purpose of this study is to analyzed the relationship between Performance and “CCV and MO” with awareness of HSI, which is attached to the employees working in Meal Solution Corner of CCV typed Supermarkets, and to make a theoretical framework. The main SM reference is Yaoko in Saitama prefecture and Hallo-day Co. in Fukuoka prefecture, Japan. They both hold two unique and strong points. First, they have a clear cooperate policy. Another is that they have established a clear business positioning. In their interviews, the head representatives from both SM stated that, the most important key for the SM is to be loved by their customers, and to be trusted. Also, my hypothesis was that because the two SM companies had the strong character of CCV orientation, they can continue on with the incremental innovation. The reason why is that, they had 5 elements from customers’ viewpoint, “Koten-keiei” based on Chain Operation, CCV Orientation, Hypothetical Culture, Learning Organization, and Cross-Functional Organization (Nakami 2015, 2016). With 5 such key elements, they manage to increase the sales and profit for over 20 years. In Retailing, store has two meanings. One is a space for selling goods, the other is that it is a “community space” for the residents in each region. Nowadays, the latter role seems to be especially important for strategy in differentiating with Virtual-retailer versus Real- retailer. The two SM companies, Yaoko and Hallo-day, have interactive communication space called “CSC”at the store. The employees as house-wife is working in CSC (Often times, the employees are also relatable to consumers as they themselves are housewife working part time.). By communication of employees and customers in CSC learns about customers’ needs, insights, and possible dissatisfaction in service and even some resource issues within the consumer’s family. These precious information are the most precious and important resources for the retailers. Therefore, CSC is positioned as the information center between the store and the Headquarter. But the average SM has not recognized this importance. They have recognized CSC simply as a Sample Tasting Corner. This is a big mistake. They see the place as similar to eat-in-corner. CSC is the space of “Solving Problem”in the customers based on Job theory by C.M. Christensen (2016). In this study, there is one more important viewpoint, which is known as MO. This concept was proposed by Kohli & Jaworski (1990) and Narver & Slatter (1990). This study is based on the concept of MO in the action viewpoint by Kohli & Jaworski, where the employees working in CSC has the HSI from the customers and share this with the store amongst different departments along with the headquarter, and to propose the counter action to the customers. If the retailing has understood this concept, they would be able to produce incremental innovation. The research question of this study as mentioned in prior, has two unique points. One is to why this study analyzes the importance between performance and HSI, CCV and MO both the consumer’s side and Company’s side. In short, one of the character is how the consumer reputes the CSC with HSI. Second is to how the middle management (GM and manager) working in Yaoko and Hallo-day’s headquarter and the management (shop manager and the chief in each department) in the store repute the CSC, and to what degree do they hold the ability of MO (See Figure 2). There are two analysis approaches in this study. First, Regression Analysis approaches the store-loyalty-focuse of CSC from consumers’ side. Second is Covariance Structure Analysis, which is similar to Sakagawa’s where after the factor analysis of MO and CCV ability in both Headquarter and Store management workers within he company side. The summary of this study is as follows. The consumers see the CSC as the space to gain further and deeper knowledge of goods and a place of communal gathering and interactive space, with mind also placing in hopes that they can provide awareness to the workers in regards to their dissatisfaction in service or further requests and demands in service. On the other hand, the management layers in headquarter reminds CSC as the space of cross MD and the space to execute MO”. The store manager is almost same similar to the management layers in headquarter. However, the difference in view of the two may seem the only true difference is MD Standardization. The reason why is that a manual is needed to establish MO within a store. This CCV typed study result seems to be similar to the study result of Sakagawa’s Chain Store Model in Japan (2016) that MD Standardization is important to execute MO in Retailing especially. In present, this study is continuing to build up the research framework compared between Chain Store Model in Japanese SM by Sakagawa Y. (2016) and CCV Model, and whether there is a CSC in store or non-cooperating supported Hallo-day SM quantitatively. At the GMC2018, I plan to deliver the report of analyzed result and the research framework. Finally, these findings of quantitative and qualitative study will be useful and beneficial towards the study of innovation process in the retailing, both consumers’ and companys’ viewpoint. Perhaps, HSI will be more effective to create CCV and MO in Retailing as the platform between the consumers and retailers continues to seek for enhancement in high quality and demand. Also, this study will be extended to Omni-channel study to make Customer Experience in Real store and Virtual (Customer Touch-point).

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.

The present research deals with the influence of managers’ construal level and anticipatory regret behavior on evaluations of customers’ and employees’ ideas in innovation contexts. While prior research focused on positive outcomes of open innovation, we provide theory and evidence to suggest that managers’ avoidance behavior in idea evaluation processes can result in negative side effects for the assessment of employees’ ideas. We conducted an experiment with 113 managers to reveal that top managers tend to higher creativity ratings of ideas from customers in comparison to identical ideas from employees. Lower level managers showed no difference in their creativity evaluations, but differentiated their feasibility rating in favor for customers’ ideas, whereas top managers did not. Our findings contribute to existing managerial decision making research and provide initial evidence on negative outcomes of open innovation for managers’ evaluation of employees’ ideas.

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.

This paper’s aim is to provide an insight into when and for what type of innovation are different types of customers most effective participants in the NPD process (Gemser & Perks 2015). Most of prior research has not considered type of innovation or only focused on one stage of NPD process, although both innovation type and each NPD process are critical factors to the NPD performance in the customer co-development context (Chatterji & Fabrizio 2014). Even though some research has examined all stages of NPD process, they also did not specify users or innovation types to compare them. Thus, we will examine the effect of customer participation on NPD performance considering both innovation and user types in terms of each NPD process. The specific research questions are 1) In the NPD process, will the impact of customer participation on NPD performance differ by user-type (lead users vs. ordinary users)? And the NPD stage?, 2) If so, when we consider both user-type and NPD stage, will the impact of customer participation on NPD performance differ depending on the type of innovation (Incremental vs. radical)? The hypotheses are developed as a basis for the subsequent research. This research has several theoretical contributions. First, we discover more appropriate user type in each NPD stage in the customer participation process. Second, we also find more appropriate user characteristics depending on the type of innovation. Third, if lead users are involved rather than ordinary users, customer participation in the development stage can generate positive impact on NPD performance, which is the opposite result compared to previous research (e.g., Chang & Taylor 2016). Finally, we show practical implications and limitations.