استراتژی های بهره برداری و اکتشاف قابلیت محصولات: تاثیر بر عملکرد محصول جدید از طریق کیفیت و نوآوری

The ability to manage existing assets and capabilities (exploitation) and the development of new capabilities (exploration) are arguably among the most relevant new product success factors. However, while exploitation-related capabilities are based on certainties regarding the efficiency of a company, exploration-related capabilities require the analysis of new technologies and processes. In existing literature, there is a gap concerning the trade-off between the exploitation and exploration of competences. Based on the theoretical background of Resource Based Theory, Dynamic Capabilities Theory and Discovery and Creation Theory, a model is proposed to analyze this gap. In this study, which examines 197 manufacturing organizations, we build on the dualities of the two types of competences and their impact on speed-to-market and market performance. The findings indicate that the choice between exploitation and exploration depends on the goals of new product development. While exploitation increases product objective quality, exploration enhances product innovativeness to the firm. Furthermore, we found that both exploitation and exploration constitute important success factors when it comes to launching new products. Finally, moderate effects of competitive intensity and market turbulence are also examined. High levels of market turbulence improve the results of exploitation, while low levels of competitiveness may encourage exploration.

New product development (NPD) is a crucial element in the long-term success and growth of businesses (Hooley, Greenley, Cadogan, & Fahy, 2005). One of the most important topics in innovation literature is the way different factors are associated with new product success (Chang and Cho, 2008 and Henard and Szymanski, 2001). Among these factors, a company's capabilities in the area of product innovation are considered essential to continued corporate survival (Day, 1994 and Menguc and Auh, 2006). Specifically, the introduction of new products depends on the ability to transform organizational competences into reliable input to market innovation (Atuahene-Gima, 2005 and Yalcinkaya et al., 2007). At a fundamental level, these competences are related to the knowledge created and accumulated by a firm through human capital and organizational routines, processes, practices and standards (Soosay & Hyland, 2008). When applied correctly, these competences may help develop completely new attributes in NPD or improve existing products, for instance their quality (Rust, Moorman, & Dickson, 2002). In this situation, it is really important for a company with the ambition to grow to decide how to explore and exploit its competences. The aim of this paper is to provide businesses with the information they need to improve their innovative ability and with it the performance of the objective quality their new products. The relationship between product innovation and market performance not only depends on existing capabilities, but also on their continued renewal (Yalcinkaya et al., 2007). A firm's ability to compete in the long term may lie in its ability to integrate and build on its existing competences, 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). Furthermore, for a company to survive and prosper, there has to be a balance between exploration and exploitation (March, 1991). The two types of competences outlined above are different in nature and few organizations are able to exploit their existing product innovation competences, while at the same time renewing and replacing them with entirely new competences (Atuahene-Gima, 2003). Furthermore, although both types of activities are important to an organization's survival, they are contradictory in nature (Holmqvist, 2004). Literature has shown how the exploitation of competences tends to limit the exploration of new ones and vice versa (Kyriakopoulos & Moorman, 2004). Some researchers argue they are mutually exclusive (Voss, Sirdeshmukh, & Voss, 2008). Moreover, the exploitation of existing competences tends to yield more immediate and certain returns compared to exploring new ones (Sethi & Sethi, 2009). Despite the trade-off between exploration and exploitation, theoretical and empirical evidence suggests that paying insufficient attention to either one reduces the performance of organizations (Atuahene-Gima, 2005). Furthermore, Garcia and Calantone (2003) show that there is a symbiotic relationship, in that exploitation provides the funds required for successful exploration, which in turn provides technological input for the exploration of vital future competences. In essence, the two types of competences have a complementary and mutually reinforcing effect on company performance (Gupta, Smith, & Shalley, 2006). In existing literature, there is evidence of a gap regarding the best way to manage the trade-off outlined above. This study builds upon the dualities involved in the exploration and exploitation of competences and their impact on new product performance along two different pathways. We begin by analyzing the relevance of exploiting competences when it comes to improving the ultimate performance of a new product based on quality enhancements and contributing to the exploitation of certainties inside the firm, after which we look at how the exploration of competences drives product innovativeness to the firm, which in turn enhances the ultimate performance of a new product. Our aim is to shed light on how exploitation is related to objective quality and how exploration is related to innovativeness to the firm. Finally, this study contributes to the discussion regarding the trade-off between exploiting and exploring competences by examining the impact of two different environmental conditions (competitive intensity and market turbulence). Innovativeness is assessed on the level of innovativeness to the firm but not with regard to the customer (Lee and O´Connor, 2003 and Song and Montoya-Weiss, 2001). Thus, this research does not attempt to categorize projects in a way similar to the approach by Griffin and Page (1996). Thus, our approach of innovativeness is similar to the technological complexity that entails developing a new product inside the firm (Danneels & Kleinschmidt, 2001). Quality is assessed in terms of objective quality and the question whether a product performs as expected (Calantone & Knight, 2000) meets quality standards (Rust et al., 2002) and has a low probability of failing (Curkovic, Vickery, & Dröge, 2000). Therefore, other types of quality, such as service quality and external quality (Zeithaml, 1988), fall outside the scope of this study. Finally, we focus on speed-to-market as an outcome variable, which is defined as “the pace of activities between idea conception and product implementation” (Menon, Chowdhury, & Lukas, 2002), with “speed” being used at times for the sake of brevity. This paper is organized as follows. To begin with, a literature review is provided regarding the dualities of competence exploitation and exploration and their trade-off. Secondly, building on the theoretical review, the model and hypotheses are proposed for empirical testing. Next, the research methodology, including data collection, construct measurement and non-response bias, are discussed, after which the principal results obtained and managerial contributions of these findings are presented.

An organization's dynamic capabilities depend on its ability to simultaneously exploit existing technologies and resources to secure efficiency benefits and create variation through exploratory innovation (Ghemawat and Costa, 1993, March, 1991 and Teece et al., 1997). According to the Dynamic Capabilities Theory (Winter, 2003), organizations depend on simultaneously exploiting existing technologies and resources to secure efficiency benefits and create variation through exploratory innovation. Thus, exploitation frequently tends to drive out exploration (Atuahene-Gima, 2005), due to the high level of uncertainty involved in completely new activities. Our first main contribution is based on this topic. The choice between exploitation and exploration is also based on the organizational targets of NPD. While the former increases product objective quality, the latter enhances product innovativeness to the firm. The two have often been seen as opposing management paradigms (Cho & Pucik, 2005), despite the fact that literature has shown that they share basic principles and are related in complex ways (Curkovic et al., 2000). Both objective quality and innovativeness to the firm are positively related to market performance, although the effect of objective product quality is greater. In effect, high-quality and highly innovative products, incorporate unique features for the customer and are better at meeting customer needs than competing products, which allows companies to develop solutions that provide a significant value to the market, what can in turn mean that the products are more successful. Secondly, we have found a positive relationship between speed-to-market and performance. This result is consistent with earlier studies. What is especially important is the indirect effect of organizational competences on speed-to-market. In this case, it is only exploitation, and not exploration, that constitutes is an important success factor with regard to launching new products to the market. Thus, exploitation through quality initiatives based on variance reduction and increased process control will drive both speed and organizational efficiency (Benner & Tushman, 2003). Our third contribution focuses on the important results related to the moderate effect of competitive intensity and market turbulence. High levels of market turbulence foster the results of exploitation, that is to say, the strength of exploitation with objective product quality and market performance is higher. However, they inhibit the market performance effect of exploration. Thus, under high levels of market turbulence, companies must opt in favour of exploitative strategies that reinforce their own core business. Conversely, low levels of competitiveness may foster exploration. Minor pressure from competitors allows companies to dedicate efforts to developing radically new products to sustain their position in the future. Moreover, it allows companies to recover the important investments, through market performance, involved in NPD. High levels of competitiveness will foster the adoption of exploitative strategies that allow companies to defend against competitors with better short-term results. 8. Managerial implications Overall, the results of this study offer several guidelines to help companies develop new and successful products. In concrete terms, it sheds light on decisions regarding the relationship between exploitation and exploration. The study builds on the two types of competences: exploitation (existing assets and capabilities) and exploration (the development of new capabilities), and their impact on new product performance. One of the main implications for managers is that both exploratory and exploitative product competences should consider in parallel when developing products. As the two competences affect different aspects of new product advantage along different paths, the use of one type of competence at the exclusion of the other can diminish the effectiveness of the product development process and ultimately lead to a weak product performance, similar to the results reported by Kim and Atuahene-Gima (2010). For example, in a company, excessive exploration at expense of exploitation can be costly, as the tangible outcomes of exploration will only be realized in the distant future and then only with a considerable uncertainty. On the other hand, a concentration on exploitation without exploration discourages the organization from pursuing learning and development (Auh & Menguc, 2005). Firms must be aware of the limitation of their existing product innovation capabilities. Firms should develop strategic flexibility in their resource allocation and coordination, as such flexibility stimulates greater exploration of new technology and markets, which may help firms escape the competence trap (Zhou, 2006). Although many advantages of using exploitative/explorative strategies have been identified, their effect on market performance depends on the company's environment, in particular with regard to competitive intensity and market turbulence. We can conclude that, under highly turbulent conditions, companies should opt in favour of exploitative strategies, such as product quality, which will defend best against external threats. These implications are similar to what is argued by Kim and Atuahene-Gima (2010), who state that exploitative learning contributes more to new product cost efficiency in highly competitive market conditions. The implications of this study as far as managers are concerned are primarily related to this topic. Companies should analyze the conditions of their markets, competences and technology. With low levels of competitiveness or market turbulence, they should develop explorative competences, which allow them to develop new radical products and, consequently, create a competitive advantage. To take advantage of their exploratory and exploitative competences in new product development, companies should carefully examine the differences between these two competences and the particular situation under which each can be more or less effective to develop a successful new product. The effective distribution of resources needs to take the dominant paradigm of the firm into account. For example, a company with a greater exploitation competence will find tend to invest more in objective product quality. On the other hand, a company with a great explorative competence will tend to put more of its resources into improving its innovative capabilities. These tendencies can create a potential threat in the mix of competence that managers should avoid.