Previous research on green product innovation (GPI) has primarily focused on the performance of new product development, neglecting the critical, early fuzzy front-end (FFE) phase. Drawing upon the firm's resource-based view (RBV) and dynamic capabilities perspective, this study explores how co-production affects FFE outcomes (creative idea and product definition proficiency) of GPI and whether joint learning ambidexterity is a mediating mechanism in international buyer-supplier relationships. Additionally, we provide a contingency perspective by considering the moderating role of the innovation ecosystem on the relationship between co-production and joint learning ambidexterity. Finally, this study contributes to a theoretical understanding, analyzing co-production as a predictor, joint learning ambidexterity as a mediator, and innovation ecosystem as a moderator.

최근의 연구는 개방형 혁신이 전략적 측면에서 혁신에 어떠한 영향을 미치는지 에 중점을 두고 있어 개방성의 형태와 관련된 연구는 부족하다. 또한, 개방형 혁신을 위해 개 방을 해야 하지만 혁신을 보호해야 하기도 한다는 모순이 존재한다. 최근 이와 관련하여 혁 신 보호 연구의 필요성이 확대되고 있다. 따라서 본 연구는 개방성의 형태가 제품혁신에 미 치는 영향을 살펴보고, 개방성의 형태와 제품혁신의 관계는 전유성 메커니즘에 따라 어떻게 달라지는지 탐구하였다. 본 연구는 OECD에서 개발하고 배포하는 CIS(Community Innovation Survey)를 기반으 로 국내 실정에 맞게 작성된 KIS(Korean Innovation Survey) 자료를 사용하였다. 연구의 주 요 연구결과를 요약하면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 개방성의 형태는 제품혁신에 정(+)의 영향을 미 친다. 구체적으로 외부 탐색은 활용적 혁신에 정(+)의 영향을 미쳤으며, 협업은 탐험적 혁신 에 정(+)의 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 둘째, 전유성 메커니즘은 개방성의 형태와 제품 혁신의 관계에 정(+)의 조절효과를 가진다. 구체적으로 공식적 전유성 메커니즘은 외부 탐색 과 활용적 혁신의 관계에 정(+)의 조절효과를 보였으며, 비공식적 전유성 메커니즘은 협업과 탐험적 혁신의 관계에 정(+)의 조절효과를 가지는 것으로 나타났다. 본 연구는 다음과 같은 기여를 할 것으로 기대된다. 첫째, 개방성의 형태를 기존의 방식과 는 다르게 외부 탐색과 협업으로 구분하였으며 이에 따라 제품혁신에 미치는 영향을 파악하 여 제품혁신의 유형과 적합한 개방성의 형태를 파악하였다. 둘째, 전유성 메커니즘의 특성에 따라 개방성의 형태와 제품혁신의 관계에 정(+)의 조절효과를 미치는 것을 파악하여 개방성 의 형태와 제품혁신의 유형에 따라 더 적합한 전유성 메커니즘 유형을 파악하였다.

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.

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.

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

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

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

Creativity and innovation are crucial components of new product development (NPD) and incorporating environmental sustainability adds an extra dimension to the creative process, particularly for the fashion industry, which is a key sector in the UK creative industries that form a significant part of the national economy. Fashion designers’ creativity during NPD can be facilitated by effective collaboration with roles such as product technologists and buyers. This paper discusses ways in which creative knowledge and processes can be applied to innovative sustainable product development, exploring barriers and enablers involved in widening the availability and adoption of environmentally sustainable fashion. NPD is one of the more tangible aspects of creativity that can be managed, whereas creative design thinking is less tangible and logical, thus making it potentially incompatible with managers who are often more business-orientated and risk-averse in their approach than designers (Puryear, 2014). This can create tension for teams when selecting the most appropriate products for production and sustainable product features have traditionally not been a priority for fashion companies. Making products more sustainable is one of the challenging constraints that designers increasingly need to address within NPD, due to the high sustainability impacts of clothing in both environmental and social terms (Hjelmgrem et al., 2015). This research will adopt a qualitative approach, involving semi-structured interviews with a sample of 20 product development professionals from retailers, brands and manufacturers in the UK fashion business, during August to October 2018. In conclusion, the study will build on the primary research results to develop an original conceptual framework in the form of a model to facilitate product developers’ awareness and understanding of sustainability issues within creative processes and to adopt a new vocabulary to elicit more effectual communication regarding sustainability between NPD actors.

The new businesses started by the companies usually results in being unsuccessful. The main reasons for that are either aiming targeting wrong customers, unsatisfaction of customers’ requesting quality standards, or taking wrong actions against the competitors in the market. Therefore, companies should aim the targets for the newly developing products based on the fulfilling values for the customers when they start the new businesses, and should take good cares for risk managements at the each step of the new business to prevent the failure in advance. In addition to that, the companies starting new businesses not only need to take the customers attributes (CA) into account, but they also should apply the new technologies as one system to initiate a new business to satisfy the basic wants of the customers. This article suggests the New Product Development Pursuing Model using the Indicative Planning methodology and the Quality Management tools. The New Product Development Pursuing Model would be completed by the following steps as below; 1. Drawing the CTQ (Critical To Quality) for setting up the new product development objectives by : i) using the VOC (Voice Of Customers) obtained by the QFD (Quality Function Deploypment) if the market is mature, ii) applying AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) to information in the QIS (Quality Information System) if the market is unmature to get enough need information of the customers. 2. Risk Management in NPD : The NPD pursuing model consisted of the IP (indicative planning) is suggested not by the process of top-down-way mandatory planning process, but by the tools used in the administrative science and economic fields, namely by governance. The companies could apply innovative methodology for new products development processes to fulfil the customers satisfaction in the fields, through the CA (Contingency Approach) of the NPD (New Product Development) process.

본 연구는 제품혁신에 초점을 맞추어 기술혁신이 기업의 수익과 재무안정성에 미치는 영향을 분석하고 기업의 지속성장을 위한 전략적 시사점을 도출하는 데 목적이 있다. 제품혁신은 신제품개발 및 도입으로 정의한다. 기업의 수익은 종업원 1인당 매출액과 매출액 증가율로 측정하고, 재무안정성은 자기자본대비 부채비율과 유동비율로 측정한다. 실증분석 은 제품혁신의 내생성을 고려하여 2단계 추정법을 사용하였고, 분석자료는 ｢인적자본기업패 널(HCCP)｣의 1차(2005년)～6차(2015년) 자료와 한국신용평가(주)의 기업재무자료를 병합한 자료이다. 분석결과에 의하면, 제품혁신은 기업의 지식자본스톡과 인적자원투자, 시장선도전 략 등에 영향을 받으며, 제품혁신이 활발히 이루어지는 기업일수록 1인당 매출액과 매출액 증가율이 높고 부채비율은 낮으며 유동비율이 높다. 이러한 분석결과는 기술혁신투자와 이 를 통한 제품혁신이 기업의 단기수익 창출 및 장기적인 재무안정성을 촉진하는 중요한 전략 이라는 것을 의미한다.

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.

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

Despite the importance of innovation and customer participation for both practitioners and academics, the effects of the integration between innovation and customer participation has rarely been addressed in consumers’ perspectives. Accordingly, the authors first examine separately the impact of the two breakthrough innovation types (technology-based innovation vs. market-based innovation) and two forms of customer participation (as information providers vs. as co-developers) on brand attitude. Following this, the interaction effect between the two variables is also tested. We used a 2x2x2 mixed subjects design. We employed a 2 (breakthrough innovations: T-INNO, M-INNO) x 2 (customer participation: CPI, CPC) between-subjects design for independent variables and the dependent variable had a 2 (brand attitude: pre-brand attitude, post-brand attitude) within-subject design. The hypotheses were tested for a cell phone product category by pretest. Participants were 148 university students from Seoul, Korea. The results show that both breakthrough innovation and customer participation positively influence the brand attitudes held by customers, though neither the two forms of breakthrough innovation nor the two forms of customer participation differ from each other in terms of the strength of this relationship. However, when technology-based innovation is combined with customer participation in the form of co-development, a stronger positive impact on brand attitude is observed than when customers are treated as information providers. Conversely, when market-based innovation is combined with customer participation in the form of information provision, a stronger positive impact on brand attitude is observed than when the customers act as co-developers. These results have a number of theoretical contributions. First, prior innovation research has mostly focused on the impact on firm performance. Even though a few researchers have conducted several studies about the impact of innovation in terms of consumers’ perspectives, they did not consider the specific type of innovation. The present study focuses on comparing the impact of two types of breakthrough innovation based on customers’ perspectives. Second, prior customer participation or co-creation research has mostly looked at the positive impact on performance from both the firm’s and consumer’s perspective. However, they did not consider the specific type of customer participation which can affect differently performance. In this study, the differential impact of each type of customer participation was explored. Third, previous studies have not focused on the interaction effect between two types of innovation and customer participation. We found that the interaction effect can be significant when they are combined together. This study has also managerial implications. First, when firm managers utilize both breakthrough innovation and customer participation strategies, they need to consider the most effective combination of the forms of innovation and participation available. Second, this interaction effect should be considered not only in the innovative product development process but also in the communication activities in their customers. Finally, the limitations and further research directions of this results are discussed.

This paper examines the determinates of subsidiary product innovation in the Chinese market based on a sample 680 EU subsidiaries over the period of 1998-2009. To date, the literature on EU subsidiaries has failed to consider product innovation in the marketing strategy interplay in approaching new markets overseas. Building on Resource Based view linked with Chinese institutional factors, it empirically examines the inferential product innovation strategy in an EU-China context. By applying the econometric analyses techniques to investigate innovation determinants and to test the presence of agglomeration effect of past innovation activities. The results show EU MNC subsidiaries’ innovation is influenced by both host country institutions and firm capabilities, rendering support to the theory. The analysis indicates EU subsidiaries’ innovation is positively related to firm advertisement, labour training and host market size. R&D expenditure has a negative bearing on innovation. However, openness has a negative and significant effect on product innovation in China. The findings have important implications for theory, practitioners and policy-making. This study contributes to the literature on the evolution of MNCs by exploring determinants of developed foreign subsidiaries’ innovation activities in emerging markets.

The paper addresses the phenomenon of the opportunism that arises from a parent (principal) toward an IJV (agent) and its antecedents. This study integrates Agency Theory and Resource Dependence Theory (RDT) to discover its determinants from the perspectives of principal opportunism. Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) techniques and fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) based on a sample of 185 Chinese-foreign IJVs in China, which are useful to reals the overall story of the principal opportunism. This study finds an IJV depends on parents’ support in both knowledge- and property-based resources has more chances to subject to principal opportunism. The result also indicates that psychic distance has a negative impact on principal opportunism. fsQCA, however, provides further solutions that the specific combinations of these predictors or their negation predicts principle opportunism.