The purpose of this study is first to understand whether technology innovation capability, which is considered an important factor in the Root companies, directly affects the business performance of the company. Second, it was attempted to determine whether internal resources deemed necessary for a company's continuous competitive advantage and excellent business performance play a mediating role in the technological innovation capability of the Root companies and the business performance. The implications of this study derived from the research results are as follows: Among the elements of technology innovation capability, R&D capability, positively affects both financial and non-financial performance. It was confirmed that the investment ratio could positively affect financial performance such as sales, market share, and yield, and non-financial performance such as corporate image, employee satisfaction, and productivity. Among the factors of technology innovation capability, the technology innovation system positively affects both financial and non-financial performance. Therefore, it can be said that securing rights to owned technology, establishing technology and funding, efficient use of resources, etc., affects financial performance such as sales or market share of a company, and affect the company's production capacity, image, and employee satisfaction. It has been verified that internal resources, including financial, physical, and human resources, can mediate between the three elements of technology innovation capability and corporate financial and non-financial performance.

벤처기업은 경쟁력 강화를 위한 내부 역량 구축에는 자원과 인력이 부족하기 때문에 공동연구, 네트워킹 등 외부와의 협력이 중요한 역할을 하고 있다. 이에 본 논문에서 는 벤처기업의 산학협력 경험이 조직학습역량과 혁신성과에 미치는 영향에 대하여 살펴보고 자 하였다. 지속적으로 확대되고 있는 정부 R&D 투자가 벤처기업과 대학의 협력을 촉진함 으로써 조직학습역량을 강화하고 혁신성과를 창출하는 메커니즘을 실증 분석하였으며 연구 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 벤처기업의 산학협력 경험은 조직학습역량을 강화시키는 것으로 나타났다. 벤처기업은 대학과의 협력 및 자원 활용을 통해 내부 역량 강화에 중요한 역할을 하고 있음을 실증분석 한 것이다. 둘째, 벤처기업의 조직학습역량은 혁신성과에 유의한 영향 을 미쳤다. 조직학습역량이 높은 조직은 새로운 아이디어를 발굴하고 공유하는 문화를 가지 게 됨으로써 기업의 혁신성과 창출에도 긍정적인 역할을 하는 것으로 나타났다. 마지막으로 벤처기업 창업자의 배태조직(incubator organization)에 따른 산학협력과 조직학습역량을 분 석한 결과 중소(벤처)기업 및 개인 경험 기반의 창업 그룹이 대학과의 협력을 통해 조직학습 역량과 혁신성과 창출에 긍정적인 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 중소(벤처)기업과 개인 기반의 창업자는 대기업, 대학 및 연구소 창업자에 비해 상대적으로 더 높은 기술역량을 보 유한 대학과 협력함으로써 기업의 조직학습역량 강화에 도움을 받은 것으로 볼 수 있다. 본 연구를 통해 정부는 벤처기업의 R&D 성과를 극대화하기 위해 대학과 협력 유도하는 정책이 필요할 것이다. 물론 벤처기업과 대학에 나눠주기식 지원이 혁신성과를 저해하고 있다는 비 판도 존재하지만 정부 투자는 기술 축적, 고급인력 양성, 혁신 네트워크 강화 등 무형자원 확 충에 중요한 역할을 한다. 그렇기에 정부는 벤처기업의 성장을 위한 투자 전략성 강화를 위 해 정부의 권한을 적절하게 활용해야 할 것이다.

Over the past 40 years, Korea's defense industry has been deepening into a low-efficiency industrial structure as the government directly controls prices, quantities, and costs. By implementing the Defense Industry Building Act in 2021, the government is creating a healthy ecosystem for the defense industry and strengthening its global competitiveness. In this study, based on KPC's Productivity Management System (PMS), a diagnostic model of defense companies implemented since 2013, the on-site diagnosis was performed from 4 to 28 days depending on the size of the company data was collected based on the results. The causal relationship was analyzed through structural equation model path analysis for the effect of innovation capability on productivity performance. As a result, it suggests that defense materials suppliers should focus on which core processes to innovate and strengthen and improve their innovation capabilities.

The importance of innovative capability, the driving force behind innovation as a company’s intangible resources, is increasing. In general, companies with high innovation capability are more likely to be successful in innovation, which can be expected to have a positive impact on corporate performance. The innovation capacity of SMEs considered in this study is R&D capability and manufacturing capability. The reason for this is that not only the continuous efforts to strengthen the competitiveness of SMEs are focused on stabilizing manufacturing capability, but also considering the situation in which governmental support for SMEs’ R&D capability has been actively developed. This study examines whether R&D capability and manufacturing capability have a significant influence on corporate performance and securing competitive advantage, and analyzes whether competitive advantage acts as a mediator between innovation capability and corporate performance through regression analysis. SPSS 23.0 software was used for the empirical analysis of the data obtained through the survey. The research results are as follows. First, both R&D and manufacturing capabilities of SMEs were found to have a significant positive effect on corporate performance. Second, manufacturing capability had a significant effect on securing competitive advantage of SMEs, but R&D capability was not significant. Third, the competitive advantage of SMEs was found to play a mediating role between manufacturing capability and corporate performance.

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.

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 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.

In this research, technology innovation capability evaluation model for small and medium enterprises was developed. To develop technology innovation capability evaluation model, two analytic technic was used. First one is AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) to give weight to each main index. Second one is fuzzy set theory to represent ambiguous index to numerical value. Finally, technology innovation capability evaluation model was achieved in combination with the same weight to AHP analysis and fuzzy set theory. With these results, small and medium enterprises can know important point in terms of strengthening the innovation capability evaluation.

국제 마케팅 분야에서 제품 전략과 수출 성과의 관계에 관한 연구가 활발히 이루어져 왔다. 이러한 제품 전략과 수출 성과의 관계는 기존 역량의 활용뿐만 아니라 지속적인 혁신활동이 뒷받침되어야 한다. 이에 본 연구는 자원기반이론 관점에서 제품 전략이 수출 성과에 미치는 영향에 관해 살펴보고자 하였으며, 나아가 조직학습관점에서 혁신 역량이 제품 전략과 수출 성과의 관계에 미치는 조절효과에 대해 알아보고자 하였다. 한국 수출업체를 대상으로 한 설문조사를 바탕으로 실증분석을 실시한 결과, 제품 품질 전략과 제품 혁신 전략이 수출 성과에 긍정적인 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 또한 활용적 혁신 역량이 제품 품질 전략과 수출 성과의 긍정적인 관계를 강화하는 것으로 나타났다. 본 연구는 제품 전략과 혁신 역량 간 적합성을 통해 제품 전략이 수출 성과에 미치는 긍정적인 효과를 높일 수 있음을 시사하며, 향후 이와 관련한 선행요인 및 결과요인에 관한 추가적인 연구가 활발하게 이루어질 수 있을 것으로 기대된다.

본 연구는 강소성 해외직접투자가 지역기술혁신에 미치는 영향을 실증분석을 하였다. 그랜저 인과관계 분석한 결과 해외직접투자가 모국의 기술혁신에 대한 촉진효과를 나타내고 모국의 기술력상승이 해외직접투자에 긍정적인 영향을 미친 것을 입증하였다. 벡터오차수정(VEC)모형을 통한 분석결과는 양자가 장기적인 정(+)의 관계의 갖고 있는 것으로 나타났으며 단기적으로 보면 전년도 기술력상승은 해외직접투자에 대한 촉진효과가 있는 것으로 나타났다. 실증분석 결과를 토대로 향후 강소성의 해외직접투자 활성화 방안도 제안하였다.

This research aims to examine the relationships among entrepreneurial orientation, organizational learning capability, firm innovation, and firm performance. To achieve a data collection, a mail survey procedure via questionnaire was implemented by using executives or managers of gems & jewelry industries, textile and clothing industries, leather and accessories, fashion apparel industries in Thailand as the key informants. Of the surveys completed and returned, 388 were usable. Hence, a model with a structural equation was used to evaluate the data survey of 388 respondents. The results reveal that, in terms of the mediating effect, organizational learning capacity and firm innovation can complement each other in order to improve entrepreneurial orientation. Findings show that entrepreneurial orientation improves firm innovation, which in turn improves firm efficiency. Firm innovation acts as a variable mediating between enterprise orientation and firm performance. Our findings contribute to the current emergence of organizational learning capacity that mediated the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance. Entrepreneurial orientation is normally a firm performance that enterprises develop which can have use the information available and make an impact. It can be considered through the mediation of organizational learning capability, and firm innovation variable and as stated in previous literature, it can influence firm performance.

본 연구는 패널회귀모형을 이용해서 해외직접투자를 중심으로 한 강소성의 지역기술혁신능력 결정요 인을 실증분석을 하였다. 분석결과 단기간에 강소성의 기술혁신능력의 향상이 국내 연구개발투자규모, 현지의 경제수준과 금융시장규모 등 내적인 요인에 의존하고 해외직접투자는 모국의 혁신능력에 대해 긍정적인 영향을 미치지 못한 것으로 나타났다. 하지만 장기적으로 OFDI변수가 기술혁신능력과 정(+)의 상관관계를 나타냈다. 실증분석 결과를 토대로 향후 강소성의 기술혁신능력 향상과 해외직접투자 활성화 방안도 제안하였다.

The study aims to investigate the determinant factors in the organisation of a firm’s innovative activities, and the impact of innovation capability on firm’s performance of electronic firms in Ho Chi Minh city, Vietnam. How is the performance of electronic companies after delivering an innovation project? How will innovation capability affect firm’s performance in electronic companies? This study aims to seek the answer of these questions. We employ a Structural Equation Model and the PLS technique in order to validate the theoretical model proposed in this study. With observation of 374 valid firms, based on Cronbach’s Alpha analysis, EFA analysis, CFA analysis and SEM analysis, this study discovers 5 groups of factors including: (i) Institution factors; (ii) Attitude of leadership factors; (iii) Marketing factors; (iv) Technological resources factors; (v) Combination factors, which have direct impact on innovation capability of firms. There are 4 groups of factors that have positive impacts on financial performance of electronic firms, with descending order of importance as follows: (1) Attitude of leadership factors; (2) Quality of human resources factors; (3) Innovation capability; (4) Marketing activities factors. Research results are important implications for Government administrative agencies for business to consult and introduce effective support policies.