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 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.

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.

The objective of the present study is to analyze the relationship of suppliers and customer participation in product development process and effects of such participation on product innovation since it is getting more and more weight in manufacturing companies. It is also aimed in this study to explore if business performance of manufacturing companies might be affected by the suppliers participation as well as product innovation that is realizable by such participation. From the analysis, following conclusions could be drawn: First, suppliers participation in manufacturing companies turned out to have influence upon product innovation (standardized coefficient=0.193, C.R=3.510), implying that nothing is more important than the role of suppliers who have intention to realize innovation through participation in manufacturing companies. Second, the analysis showed that customer participation exercised impact upon product innovation of manufacturing companies (standardized coefficient=0.686, C.R=6.433), suggesting that the more customer participate in product development process of manufacturing companies, the more manufacturing companies could sharpen their competitiveness. Third, it was made known from the analysis that the product innovation thanks to suppliers and customer participation in manufacturing companies could have influence upon their business performance (standardized coefficient=0.762, C.R=7.666), signifying that the product innovation of manufacturing companies might depend on the participation of suppliers and manufacturers and, in turn, could affect their own business performance.

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.