The radionuclide management process is a conditioning technology to reduce the burden of spent fuel management, and refers to a process that can separate and recover radionuclides having similar properties from spent fuels. In particular, through the radionuclide management process, high heat- emitting, high mobility, and high toxicity radionuclides, which have a significant impact on the performance of disposal system, are separated and managed. The performance of disposal system is closely related to properties (decay heat and radioactivity) of radioactive wastes from the radionuclide management process, and the properties are directly linked to the radionuclide separation ratio that determines the composition of radionuclides in waste flow. The Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute have derived process flow diagrams for six candidates for the radionuclide management process, weighing on feasibility among various process options that can be considered. In addition, the GoldSim model has been established to calculate the mass and properties of waste from each unit process of the radionuclides management process and to observe their time variations. In this study, the candidates for the radionuclide management process are evaluated based on the waste mass and properties by using the GoldSim model, and sensitivity analysis changing the separation ratio are performed. And the effect of changes in the separation ratio for highly sensitive radionuclides on waste management strategy is analyzed. In particular, the separation ratio for high heat-emitting radionuclides determines the period of long-term decay storage.

Assertions in current academic research and practical discourse that promote agility reduce the importance or prominence given to organizational strategic planning. While firms today are required to become agile and thus quickly and timely respond to emerging market challenges, the strategic planning process is perceived as rigid, slow, and somehow obsolete and may contradict agility. These present practitioners with a dilemma regarding the relevance of planning in this era. This study examines the pertinence of strategy planning in this agile age and its effect on firms’ business performance. In addition, since the environment in which firms operate play a significant role in determining strategies, when maintaining strategic planning, organizations need to consider internal and external factors that may change the effect of planning on performance. Hence, the study also explores market scanning (an external condition) and fault tolerance climate (an internal condition) under which the relationship planning-performance varies. Based on a quantitative research, data from organizations, and insights from fit-as-moderation approach, a conceptual model and research hypotheses are designed and tested. Common and acceptable analysis methods were employed to test the hypotheses. Initial findings indicate that strategy planning should not be deemphasized in contemporary days since it is associated with better financial (e.g., sales growth) and nonfinancial (e.g., new customer acquirement) outcomes. Additionally, performance consequences of planning are dependent on firm external and internal conditions. While the positive planning-performance relationship is associated with higher levels of market sensing, it is negatively associated with higher levels of fault tolerance. The findings have well-timed theoretical and practical implications for the business and strategy literature. Managers considering the necessity of planning strategies should recognize its relevance and take into account contingencies examined in this research.

Emerging markets are experiencing immense institutional transformations, which present substantial opportunities and challenges for entrepreneurial firms attempting to grow their businesses. The main challenges arise from the fact that emerging markets are less productive, and uncertainty and risk are high due to less transparency. Consequently, dissimilar to their counterparts in developed markets, entrepreneurial firms in developing economies are characterised by limited internationalisation knowledge and process, which are pivotal for developing export marketing strategy effectively.

본 연구는 자원기반관점과 역량기반관점에 근거하여, 다국적기업 자회사의 역량(기술 및 마케팅 역량)이 자회사의 현지화 전략(조달 및 판매 현지화)에 미치는 영향을 분석하고, 아울러 본사의 국제화 역량과 자회사의 업종이 이 요인들 간에 어떠한 조절역할을 하고 있는가, 나아가 자회사의 현지화 전략이 자회사 성과에 미치는 영향을 분석한 것이다. 이를 위해 이론적인 연구모델을 수립하고, S&P 1000과 Russel 3000에 속한 미국 다국적기업들 중 2000~2018년 동안 한국에 단독소유 자회사를 운영한 51개 기업들을 대상으로 실증분석을 실시하였다. 분석 결과, 자회사의 기술적 역량과 마케팅 역량 모두 조달 현지화와 판매 현지화에 긍정적인 영향을 미치고, 자회사의 마케팅 역량과 자회사의 조달 및 판매 현지화 사이에서 본사의 국제화 역량과 자회사의 업종이 조절효과를 미치는 것으로 확인되었다. 또한, 진출 분야가 제조업인 경우 조달 현지화가 자회사 성과(ROA)에 긍정적인 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 본 논문은 그동안 연구가 다소 미진했던 것으로 평가되고 있는 다국적기업 자회사의 현지화 결정요인으로서 자회사 역량을 중심으로 실증분석을 실시한 연구로서 그 의의를 지니며, 미국 다국적기업들의 실제 기업 재무 데이터를 수집하여 사용한 정량적 실증연구로서 차별성을 가진다.

This study is an empirical research to find out the effect on the management performance of hidden champions of food manufacturing companies when using blue ocean strategy for new product development. In order to achieve the purpose of this study, we conducted a questionnaire survey on hidden champions in the domestic food manufacturing industry and proceeded empirical analysis. When small and medium-sized enterprises in food manufacturing industries develop a new product, searching for non-customer, rebuilding the market boundary, and linking the external networks have a significant impact on their management performance. However, the fair procedure did not have a significant effect on the management performance. In terms of relative influence, rebuilding the market boundary was most affecting, followed by searching for non-customer and linking the external networks. On the other hand, this study implicated the management performance of hidden champions of food manufacturing industries when new products is developed by using the blue ocean strategy. Obtained results are as follows. If small and medium-sized enterprises of food manufacturing industries develop new products, it will be able to improve the management performance by utilizing strategies such as searching for non-customer, rebuilding the market boundary, and linking the external networks. In particular, the rebuilding the market boundary among the blue ocean strategies has a relatively high impact on management performance.

새로운 가능성의 탐험(Exploration)과 기존 확실성의 활용(Exploitation)간 균형은 조직 학습뿐 아니라 전략, 혁신, 연구개발의 중요한 문제다. 기술의 융복합화 트렌드 속에 기업들은 지속적 경쟁 우위를 위해 기술 지식 자산을 가급적 다양하게 보유하려는 동시에 특정 분야에 깊은 기술 역량을 가지려 한다. 기업들은 기술 포트폴리오 전략 고민하지만, 기술 속성에 대한 고려는 제한적이다. 첨단 기술의 대표인 나노기술은 기존의 제품 및 사업 중심 기술과 달리 다양한 분야에 활용되는 일반목적기술 또는 플랫폼 기술 속성을 가지고 있다. 본 연구는 다국적 기업들이 플랫폼 기술로서 나노기술에 대해 탐험과 활용, 즉 다각 화와 특정 기술 우위 관점의 포트폴리오 전략이 혁신 및 재무 성과에 어떤 영향을 미치는지를 패널 데이터 기반으로 다중 회귀 분석을 하였다. 본 연구의 실증 분석결과는 기존의 제품 기술들과 달리, 플랫폼 기술로서의 나노기술은 다각화와 특정 기술 우위가 증가할수록 혁신 성과와 재무 성과에 모두 긍정적인 영향을 주는 것으로 나타났다. 또한 나노기술의 포트폴리오 형태, 즉 다각화와 전문성 기반의 특정 기술 우위 중에, 다각화된 나노기술 포트폴리오가 특정 기술에 우위를 갖는 경우보다 혁신 성과와 재무 성과를 향상시 키는 데 더 많은 기여를 하고 있다는 결과를 얻었다. 이는 기업들이 자원의 제약하에서 일반목적 기술의 경우 포트폴리오 전략에 어떻게 추구하는 것이 효율적인지를 시사한다.

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.

This study examines when high tech firms are better off specializing in either exploration or exploitation learning strategy. Drawing on the organizational learning literature, we hypothesize that a firm’s imbalance between exploration and exploitation (or specialization strategy) has differential impacts on firm performance depending on its structural characteristics and external environment. A survey data of 180 high tech firms in China shows that firm age and scarcity of R&D resources moderate the relationship between specialization and business performance. Moreover, specialization strategy works better when competitive intensity is low.

본 연구는 탐방객 인식에 기반한 보다 분석적인 접근의 국립공원 시설관리방안을 제시하고자 하였다. 덕유산국립공 원과 태안해안국립공원 탐방객 대상 총 214매를 유효표본으로 기술분석과 중요도-성취도 분석 실시 결과 태안해안국립 공원은 지속적 관리노력 필요 항목이 4개, 저우선순위 항목이 3개, 과잉 노력 지양항목이 2개로 평가되었다. 덕유산국립 공원은 지속적 관리노력 필요 항목이 3개, 우선시정 필요 항목 1개, 저우선순위 항목이 4개로 나타났다. 관리상태에 대한 전반적인 만족도는 2개소 모두 긍정적이며 국립공원 이용에 대한 종합적인 만족도 또한 3점 이상으로 나타났으나 덕유산국립공원이 태안해안국립공원에 비해 두 분야 모두 더 높게 평가되었다. 태안해안국립공원은 세부 관리속성 모두에서 관리상의 미진한 점이 나타났다. 이는 산악형 국립공원과는 상이한 해상해안형 국립공원의 탐방특성에 기인 한 결과로 보이며 국립공원 유형별로 상이한 이용특성의 분석에 기초한 시설관리가 탐방만족 제고를 위한 필수요건으 로 판단된다.

The global diffusions of free trade agreements have encouraged an increasing number of companies to participate in foreign markets. However, export firms fall behind big data-based customers in international export markets. The gap between the needs of export markets and the capabilities of export companies is broadening. Marketing capabilities are export firms’ ability to understand what target customers want and develop tactical marketing actions and allocate available resources, and achieve export performance (Day 1994; Vorhies and Morgan, 2003). Export firms have to enhance marketing capabilities to narrow the gap (Day, 2011). This study investigates marketing capabilities, export marketing strategies, and their relationships with export performance of the export companies in an industrial complex in South Korea. This study tries to find how marketing variables impact the performance of export firms through the relationships among them. Marketing literature examined that the suitability between marketing capabilities and export marketing strategy is important because of its impact on export performance. Export marketing literature reviewed that export firms’ characteristics such as international experience, firm size, firm age, and export intensity, firm level of market orientation are considered positively related to export performance. Especially for inexperienced and small and medium-sized firms, which have limited marketing resources to achieve successful export performance, the right choice of export marketing, export marketing strategy, and export performance is indispensable. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the moderating effects of export firms’ characteristics on the interactive linkages within marketing capability, export marketing strategy, and export performance. Our first focus in this study is the relationships between marketing capabilities and export strategies and both export marketing strategy and export performance. We discuss their relationships with each other and with export firms’ performance. We develop testable hypotheses as shown in Fig.1. The final samples we used are 104 manufactured export firms in S. Korea. Next, as a result of testing, based on the relationships of having positive effects, we identify the moderating effects of export firms’ characteristics. Our research model proposes that marketing capabilities affect export marketing strategies and ‘specialized marketing capabilities’. These affect the overall export performance. We therefore hypothesize that H1: Marketing organizational capability is positively related to (a) export marketing strategy and (b) specialized export marketing capability. H2: Marketing human resource capability is positively related to (a) export marketing strategy and (b) specialized export marketing capability. H3: Marketing financial capability is positively related to (a) export marketing strategy and (b) specialized export marketing capability. H4: Marketing infrastructure is positively related to (a) export marketing strategy and (b) specialized export marketing capability. H5: Export marketing strategy is positively related to (a) specialized export marketing capability and (b) export performance. H6: Specialized export marketing capability is positively related to export performance. The results of our PLS-SEM analyses are as follows. Our results support H1b, linking marketing organizational capability and specialized export marketing capability. Marketing infrastructure was found to be positively related to both export marketing strategy and specialized export marketing capability, supporting H4a and H4b, respectively. We also observed that export marketing strategy a positive link with specialized export marketing capability and export performance, supporting H5a and H5b, respectively. However, no support is found for H2, H3, and H6. Moderating Effects of Export firms’ Characteristic Factors We tested how export firms’ characteristics moderate the relationships described in our research model (Hypotheses1-6) We used the moderate factors such as export product (final product vs. parts), customer (domestic vs. overseas, company (manufacturer vs. vendor), employment size (less than 100 person, 100 to300, more than 300), sales(less than $46 million, $46 million to $182 million, more than $182 million), export intensity (less than 50% vs. more than 50%) The moderating effects of export firms’ characteristics on the relationships within our research model are discussed (see Figure 1). Four of 30 moderating hypotheses for export firms’ characteristics were supported. The more number of employees and Greater sales volume strengthened the relationships between marketing infrastructures and export marketing strategies. Higher foreign customer strengthened the relationships between marketing infrastructure and specialized export marketing capability. Greater final products strengthened the relationships between export marketing strategies and export performance. However, the relationships between marketing organizational capability and specialized export marketing capability and between export marketing strategy and specialized export marketing capability were not significantly changed with export firms’ characteristic factors. There are no moderating effects on the types of firm and the types of export intensity. The results of this research suggest that the export companies should consider the choice of export marketing strategies the most important factor to achieve high export performance. This study indicates that policy makers for export companies in S. Korea should develop export assistant programs based on export firms’ characteristic factors such as the number of employee, sales volume, the type of customer, and the type of export product. Following limitations of this research should be noted. First, in addition to the manufacturing industry, more researches should be done in other industries. The findings of this study will ensure more validation. Second, to assess the export performance of export firms, this study uses the subjective opinion of respondent about the degree of export performance because of the difficulties of obtaining financial data. The objective financial data should be used to ensure more objectiveness for this research. Third, this study relies on survey data related to the export companies within an industrial complex area in S. Korea. It should be extended to other regions.

본 연구의 목적은 다국적기업의 글로벌 친환경혁신전략에 영향을 미치는 요인과 해당 결정요인들을 바탕으로 실행된 글로벌 친환경혁신전략이 다국적기업의 경영성과에 직접적인 영향을 미치는지 고찰해보기 위함이다. 제도적 이론을 활용하여 연구의 이론적 모형을 제시했으며 이를 바탕으로 글로벌 규제적 압력과 글로벌 경쟁자 압력이 다국적기업의 글로벌 친환경혁신전략에 긍정적인 영향을 미칠 것이라는 가설을 제시하였다. 이와 함께 다국적기업의 친환경혁신전략과 경영성과 간 직접적인 관계가 있음을 나타내는 가설도 함께 제시함으로써 기업의 의사결정에 직접적인 영향을 미치는 모든 주체들의 특성을 고려하여 다국적기업의 글로벌 친환경혁신전략 프로세스를 설명하는 통합적인 모형을 나타내보고자 하였다. 본 연구의 연구모형은 PLS를 이용한 경로분석을 바탕으로 검증 되었으며 자료는 한국증권거래소에 상장된 다국적기업의 본사 중 식품가공 및 처리를 제외한 제조업만을 한정하여 실시한 설문조사를 통해 수집되었다. 또한 경로분석에 앞서 수집된 자료의 편의를 없애기 위해 무응답편의 및 동일방법편의 진단을 위한 분석을 실시하였다. 이를 바탕으로 자료를 분석한 결과 모든 제도적 압력 요인들이 다국적기업의 친환경혁신전략에 긍정적인 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 그와 더불어, 본 연구결과는 다국적기업 의 친환경혁신전략이 기업의 경영성과 개선에도 직접적인 영향을 미친다는 것을 보여준다.

This study seeks to understand how the interplay between Market Orientation, Firm strategy and Performance is developed over time. In order to study the interplay, I build a model on industry and company evolution by adopting a Variation, Selection and Retention (VSR) analysis of a telecom company and industry 1980-2010 in Finland market. The evolution of telecom industry and a case company is manifested in innovations and strategy in a company and respectively in the basis of competition in the market. In addition, what capabilities and resources a company can use successfully when innovating and developing products and services, and how those capabilities and resources change over time are of interest. A longitudinal (1980-2010) abductive case study of a telecom company’s offerings and strategy was made. Company’s spearhead innovations, managerial cognition and strategy were studied in a longitudinal setting. The theoretical contributions of the study are to discover Market Orientation payoff is context and industry life-cycle specific. Secondly, Market Orientation has potential adverse effects on Firm Performance, and what is the most important, Market Orientation as a sole source of innovation activity has a permanent influence on company’s comparative advantage in the market.

본 연구는 대구경북의 중소기업을 대상으로 전략유형과 성과관리시스템이 경영성과에 미치는 영향에 대한 연구를 통해 중소기업에 적합한 전략유형을 알아보고 그에 맞는 성과관리시스템의 설계를 통해 기업의 경영성과를 개선하고자 하였다. 연구결과 전략유형 중에서 기술혁신형과 생산중점형은 경영성과에 유의적인 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났으며, 성과관리시스템은 재무적성과와 비재무적성과에 부분적으로 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 또한 전략유형과 성과관리시스템의 상호작용은 기술혁신형 기업의 경영성과에 유의적인 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 이러한 결과는 중소기업들이 전략유형에 맞는 성과관리시스템의 구축을 통해 경영성과를 향상 시킬 수 있음을 지지하고, 이를 통해 기업들은 자원의 제약과 무한 경쟁을 이겨내고 지속적인 성장을 할 수 있을 것으로 보인다.

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.

The current study aimed to explore how students’ L2 writing self-efficacy and interest contribute to strategy use and writing performance. An exploratory factor analysis with 212 Korean college students’ self-reported motivation scores revealed three underlying constructs of self-efficacy, communicative interest, and instrumental interest. Subsequent multiple regression analyses indicated significant positive relations between self-efficacy and the five types of strategy use. Communicative interest appeared to positively contribute to use of planning,monitoring, and compensatory strategies. Instrumental interest was a predictor of retrieval and compensatory strategies. L2 writing strategy use was a statistically significant but minor contributor to L2 writing performance. The current study also suggests that students’ instrumental interest and communicative interest should be balanced. Further research is needed to identify mitigating effects of L2writing strategy use for motivation and performance development.