بین المللی سازی شرکت های فن آوری جوان: چشم انداز مکمل درباره سوابق آشنایی بازار خارجی

Foreign market familiarity is a central construct, which both traditional Process Theories of Internationalization (PTI) and International New Venture Theory (INVT) emphasize. The present study combines PTI and INVT reasoning and develops an entrepreneurial process view to study pre- and post-entry antecedents of technology firms’ foreign market familiarity. Combining PTI and INVT reasoning, we theoretically examine the role of prior foreign market analysis, interaction with foreign market players, and exposure to foreign market particularities as antecedents of foreign market familiarity. We test hypotheses on a dataset of n = 248 internationally acting German technology firms. The results show that technology firms internationalize in a proactive manner as suggested by INVT scholars, but in a systematic way as suggested by PTI scholars. Hence, the present study leads to a further convergence of the two domains of IB and IE.

Firms venturing into foreign markets are usually at a disadvantage compared to indigenous competitors in terms of their familiarity with the local institutional and business environment (Pedersen & Petersen, 2004). This is because entrant firms face “liabilities of foreignness” (Hymer, 1960 and Zaheer, 1995), which arise from differences in, for example, cultural, legal, and financial facets of the host country (Johanson & Vahlne, 1977). Being unfamiliar with the host country's institutional and business setting may cause the firm to make costly errors impeding foreign market development and success (Eriksson, Johanson, Majkgard, & Sharma, 1997). Scholars have emphasized that familiarizing with the foreign market is of particular importance for young technology firms (Bell et al., 2001, Bloodgood et al., 1996, Boter and Holmquist, 1996, Crick and Spence, 2005 and Preece et al., 1998). Young technology firms have often been reported to venture into foreign markets quickly pursuing various motives such as striving for business opportunities in niche markets (Bell, McNaughton, Young, & Crick, 2003), seeking growth opportunities in markets of large size (Ojala & Tyrväinen, 2007) or to quickly amortize initial R&D expenditures (Burgel & Murray, 2000). However, venturing abroad early may have major drawbacks due to limited resources and scant experience (McDougall et al., 1994 and Westhead et al., 2001). Thus, in addition to facing “liabilities of foreignness” (Hymer, 1960 and Zaheer, 1995), young technology firms suffer from “liabilities of size and newness” at their first internationalization (Singh, Tucker, & House, 1986). Hence, it is critical for young technology firms to quickly become familiar with the foreign market to avoid errors, which may jeopardize their growth and performance (Sapienza, Autio, George, & Zahra, 2006). The centrality of foreign market familiarity in the internationalization of the firm is reflected by the fact that both, traditional Process Theories of Internationalization (PTI) (Johanson and Vahlne, 1977 and Johanson and Vahlne, 1990) and the International New Venture Theory (INVT) (e.g. Oviatt & McDougall, 1994) emphasize its importance. Research, to date, has discussed the PTI and INVT mostly contradictory, as the two theories take different perspectives. PTI answers “why the internationalization process unfolds in an incremental manner”. Thus, PTI has a post-entry focus emphasizing a systematic internationalization approach in which the firm gains experiences in the context of the foreign market. INVT answers “how it is possible that firms internationalize right from inception”. Hence, INVT primarily has a pre-entry focus emphasizing a proactive internationalization approach in which enablers such as alternative governance structures (i.e. networks) allow for rapid internationalization. However, internationalization of technology firms does not end at initial foreign market entry. Although originally focusing on manufacturing firms, PTI reasoning may allow for explaining parts of technology firms’ internationalization as well. Thus, the aim of the present paper is to combine PTI and INVT reasoning and to develop an entrepreneurial process view in order to study the antecedents of technology firms’ perceived institutional familiarity and perceived business familiarity. Perceived institutional familiarity is the extent to which the firm's management assumes to be familiar with the rules, norms, and values in terms of, for instance, formal legal decisions or formal regulative issues ( Eriksson et al., 1997 and Peng, 2000). Perceived business familiarity is the extent to which the firm's management assumes to be familiar with the customers, suppliers, and local business culture ( Eriksson et al., 1997). Drawing on PTI and INVT reasoning, we develop a model explaining the perceived foreign market familiarity as emerging from prior foreign market analysis, interaction with foreign market players, and exposure to foreign market particularities. Prior foreign market analysis is the extent to which the firm collects market specific information prior to entering the market. Interaction with foreign market players describes the extent to which the firm interacts with customers, suppliers, and other cooperative partners in the foreign market and exposure to foreign market particularities means the extent to which the firm is exposed to new market segments, different market forces or altered customer preferences in the foreign market. Our paper is an essential addition to current research. Researchers have extensively examined determinants of international new venturing (e.g. Bloodgood et al., 1996, Reuber and Fischer, 1997 and Zuccella et al., 2007). They have also examined antecedents of foreign market knowledge and the role of social networks (e.g. Presutti et al., 2007 and Yli-Renko et al., 2001). Yet, although they have begun to suggest that PTI and INVT are complementary (Autio, 2005, Chetty and Campbell-Hunt, 2004 and Johanson and Vahlne, 2009), they have been rather silent about how social and contextual factors from the pre- and post-entry phase affect and shape perceived foreign market familiarity. Hence, we take a novel perspective that what a firm knows about a foreign market emerges in a systematic and proactive process of shaping and development ( Dimov, 2007). Such a perspective has not yet been taken in IB and IE research, because it combines entrepreneurial and process view thinking and goes beyond the scope of the single PTI and INVT perspectives. Thus, we contribute to a more holistic understanding of the internationalization of technology firms and to a further convergence between the two domains of IB and IE. The paper is structured as follows: In the next section we develop our research model and its underlying hypotheses drawing on complementarities between PTI and INVT. We then test our hypotheses on a dataset of 248 technology firms. Finally, we discuss our empirical findings, address limitations of our study, and point at implications for future research.

The present paper empirically examined how social and contextual factors from the pre- and post-entry phase of internationalization affect and shape the perceived foreign market familiarity of young technology firms. The results show that technology firms internationalize in a proactive manner as suggested by INVT scholars, but in a systematic way as suggested by PTI scholars. Thus, we have taken a novel perspective integrating PTI and INVT reasoning showing that what technology firms know about foreign markets emerges both in a systematic and proactive manner. Combining entrepreneurial and process view thinking goes beyond the scope of a single PTI or INVT perspective and is, thus, an important addition to the current theoretical debate in the field. As is the case for most empirical investigations, our study faces limitations as well. First, our study is restricted to technology firms from highly knowledge intensive sectors. Although it seems that proactive international venturing is significantly typical for these firms, it may also be interesting to observe the research question in other industries from more traditional sectors. This may increase variance explanation of the dependent constructs and may further differentiate the knowledge acquisition mechanisms utilized. Future research may look at low technology firms, established SMEs, or large MNEs, to name typical populations not covered by our study, in order to examine the reach of our framework. Second, emphasizing pre-entry constructs and post-entry constructs our study suffers from a lack of panel data. We addressed the limitations of applying a retrospective recall already in the methodology section. Although we have reasons to assume that it is not a crucial problem in our research, it would be beneficial for future research to apply longitudinal data in order to provide pre- and post-entry evidence. Third, our study is limited to German firms. Whereas we do not have fundamental reasons to assume that firms from other geographical areas behave differently with regard to becoming familiar with the foreign market, we cannot generalize our findings towards other countries. Our paper offers substantial room for future research. Based on the importance of foreign market familiarity not only for technology firms, but also for internationally operating firms in general, we make a plea for an increase in cooperative research between these two distinct views of internationalization in the future. Although international new ventures enter foreign markets at an early stage in their life-cycle (Zahra et al., 2000) challenging the incremental pattern as suggested by the Process Theories, some core elements and concepts are similar in both internationalization theories. We agree with Keupp and Gassmann (2009) that the young field of IE can benefit a great deal from established theoretical concepts from the field of IB and vice versa. IB studies are about creating value abroad, however, IB theory alone cannot explain how value is created by international activities. Entrepreneurs, on the other hand, may mismanage resources and internationalize incorrectly (Keupp & Gassmann, 2009). Hence, there are ample opportunities for more joint future research on the intersection of IB, entrepreneurship, and IE literature. The present paper is only a small step towards further integration of the fields. Topics for a closer research agenda may include how and why entrepreneurship varies across countries (Busenitz, Gómez, & Spencer, 2000), foreign opportunity recognition (Baron & Ensley, 2006), managerial capabilities to exploit foreign business opportunities (Boeker & Wiltbank, 2005), or small firm internationalization into emerging or transitional economies (Cheng & Lin, 2009). As these topics are quite complex in nature and necessitate in-depth empirical investigation, mixed methods designs including case study research might be necessary in order to further develop the field. Moreover, conducting quantitative empirical studies with longitudinal data may shed more light on the complex topic of learning and internationalization of technology firms. As methodological triangulations (Kelle, 2006 and Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003) combining quantitative and qualitative research are largely missing in the field today, we think that there are ample research opportunities for such methodologies in order to systematically study learning and internationalization in the field of IE.