• Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.39-59
• /
• 2007

The international involvement of a firm has been described as a gradual development process "a process in which the enterprise gradually increases its international involvement in many studies. This process evolves in the interplay between the development of knowledge about foreign markets and operations on one hand and increasing commitment of resources to foreign markets on the other." On the basis of Uppsala internationalization model, many studies strengthen strong theoretical and empirical support. According to the predictions of the classic stages theory, the internationalization process of firms have been recognized and characterized gradual evolution to foreign markets, so called stage theory: indirect & direct export, strategic alliance and foreign direct investment. However, termed "international new ventures" (McDougall, Shane, and Oviatt 1994), "born globals" (Knight 1997; Knight and Cavusgil 1996; Madsen and Servais 1997), "instant internationals" (Preece, Miles, and Baetz 1999), or "global startups" (Oviatt and McDougall 1994) have been used and come into spotlight in internationalization study of technology intensity venture companies. Recent researches focused on venture company have suggested the phenomenons of 'born global' firms as a contradiction to the stages theory. Especially the article by Oviatt and McDougall threw the spotlight on international entrepreneurs, on international new ventures, and on their importance in the globalising world economy. Since venture companies have, by definition. lack of economies of scale, lack of resources (financial and knowledge), and aversion to risk taking, they have a difficulty in expanding their market to abroad and pursue internalization gradually and step by step. However many venture companies have pursued 'Born Global Strategy', which is different from process strategy, because corporate's environment has been rapidly changing to globalization. The existing studies investigate that (1) why the ventures enter into overseas market in those early stage, even in infancy, (2) what make the different international strategy among ventures and the born global strategy is better to the infant ventures. However, as for venture's performance(growth and profitability), the existing results do not correspond each other. They also, don't include marketing strategy (differentiation, low price, market breadth and market pioneer) that is important factors in studying of BGV's performance. In this paper I aim to delineate the appearance of international new ventures and the phenomenons of venture companies' internationalization strategy. In order to verify research problems, I develop a resource-based model and marketing strategies for analyzing the effects of the born global venture firms. In this paper, I suggested 3 research problems. First, do the korean venture companies take some advantages in the aspects of corporate's performances (growth, profitability and overall market performances) when they pursue internationalization from inception? Second, do the korean BGV have firm specific assets (foreign experiences, foreign orientation, organizational absorptive capacity)? Third, What are the marketing strategies of korean BGV and is it different from others? Under these problems, I test then (1) whether the BGV that a firm started its internationalization activity almost from inception, has more intangible resources(foreign experience of corporate members, foreign orientation, technological competences and absorptive capacity) than any other venture firms(Non_BGV) and (2) also whether the BGV's marketing strategies-differentiation, low price, market diversification and preemption strategy are different from Non_BGV. Above all, the main purpose of this research is that results achieved by BGV are indeed better than those obtained by Non_BGV firms with respect to firm's growth rate and efficiency. To do this research, I surveyed venture companies located in Seoul and Deajeon in Korea during November to December, 2005. I gather the data from 200 venture companies and then selected 84 samples, which have been founded during 1999${\sim}$2000. To compare BGV's characteristics with those of Non_BGV, I also had to classify BGV by export intensity over 50% among five or six aged venture firms. Many other researches tried to classify BGV and Non_BGV, but there were various criterion as many as researchers studied on this topic. Some of them use time gap, which is time difference of establishment and it's first internationalization experience and others use export intensity, ration of export sales amount divided by total sales amount. Although using a mixed criterion of prior research in my case, I do think this kinds of criterion is subjective and arbitrary rather than objective, so I do mention my research has some critical limitation in the classification of BGV and Non_BGV. The first purpose of research is the test of difference of performance between BGV and Non_BGV. As a result of t-test, the research show that there are statistically efficient difference not only in the growth rate (sales growth rate compared to competitors and 3 years averaged sales growth rate) but also in general market performance of BGV. But in case of profitability performance, the hypothesis that is BGV is more profit (return on investment(ROI) compared to competitors and 3 years averaged ROI) than Non-BGV was not supported. From these results, this paper concludes that BGV grows rapidly and gets a high market performance (in aspect of market share and customer loyalty) but there is no profitability difference between BGV and Non_BGV. The second result is that BGV have more absorptive capacity especially, knowledge competence, and entrepreneur's international experience than Non_BGV. And this paper also found BGV search for product differentiation, exemption strategy and market diversification strategy while Non_BGV search for low price strategy. These results have never been dealt with other existing studies. This research has some limitations. First limitation is concerned about the definition of BGV, as I mentioned above. Conceptually speaking, BGV is defined as company pursue internationalization from inception, but in empirical study, it's very difficult to classify between BGV and Non_BGV. I tried to classify on the basis of time difference and export intensity, this criterions are so subjective and arbitrary that the results are not robust if the criterion were changed. Second limitation is concerned about sample used in this research. I surveyed venture companies just located in Seoul and Daejeon and also use only 84 samples which more or less provoke sample bias problem and generalization of results. I think the more following studies that focus on ventures located in other region, the better to verify the results of this paper.

• Asia pacific journal of information systems
• /
• v.23 no.3
• /
• pp.25-53
• /
• 2013

This study analyzes the effect of Computer Aided Innovation (CAI) to improve R&D Capabilities empirically. Survey was distributed by e-mail and Google Docs, targeting CTO of 235 SMEs. 142 surveys were returned back (rate of return 60.4%) from companies. Survey results from 119 companies (83.8%) which are effective samples except no-response, insincere response, estimated value, etc. were used for statistics analysis. Companies with less than 50billion KRW sales of entire researched companies occupy 76.5% in terms of sample traits. Companies with less than 300 employees occupy 83.2%. In terms of the type of company business Partners (called 'partners with big companies' hereunder) who work with big companies for business occupy 68.1%. SMEs based on their own business (called 'independent small companies') appear to occupy 31.9%. The present status of holding IT system according to traits of company business was classified into partners with big companies versus independent SMEs. The present status of ERP is 18.5% to 34.5%. QMS is 11.8% to 9.2%. And PLM (Product Life-cycle Management) is 6.7% to 2.5%. The holding of 3D CAD is 47.1% to 21%. IT system-holding and its application of independent SMEs seemed very vulnerable, compared with partner companies of big companies. This study is comprised of IT infra and IT Utilization as CAI capacity factors which are independent variables. factors of R&D capabilities which are independent variables are organization capability, process capability, HR capability, technology-accumulating capability, and internal/external collaboration capability. The highest average value of variables was 4.24 in organization capability 2. The lowest average value was 3.01 in IT infra which makes users access to data and information in other areas and use them with ease when required during new product development. It seems that the inferior environment of IT infra of general SMEs is reflected in CAI itself. In order to review the validity used to measure variables, Factors have been analyzed. 7 factors which have over 1.0 pure value of their dependent and independent variables were extracted. These factors appear to explain 71.167% in total of total variances. From the result of factor analysis about measurable variables in this study, reliability of each item was checked by Cronbach's Alpha coefficient. All measurable factors at least over 0.611 seemed to acquire reliability. Next, correlation has been done to explain certain phenomenon by correlation analysis between variables. As R&D capabilities factors which are arranged as dependent variables, organization capability, process capability, HR capability, technology-accumulating capability, and internal/external collaboration capability turned out that they acquire significant correlation at 99% reliability level in all variables of IT infra and IT Utilization which are independent variables. In addition, correlation coefficient between each factor is less than 0.8, which proves that the validity of this study judgement has been acquired. The pair with the highest coefficient had 0.628 for IT utilization and technology-accumulating capability. Regression model which can estimate independent variables was used in this study under the hypothesis that there is linear relation between independent variables and dependent variables so as to identify CAI capability's impact factors on R&D. The total explanations of IT infra among CAI capability for independent variables such as organization capability, process capability, human resources capability, technology-accumulating capability, and collaboration capability are 10.3%, 7%, 11.9%, 30.9%, and 10.5% respectively. IT Utilization exposes comprehensively low explanatory capability with 12.4%, 5.9%, 11.1%, 38.9%, and 13.4% for organization capability, process capability, human resources capability, technology-accumulating capability, and collaboration capability respectively. However, both factors of independent variables expose very high explanatory capability relatively for technology-accumulating capability among independent variable. Regression formula which is comprised of independent variables and dependent variables are all significant (P<0.005). The suitability of regression model seems high. When the results of test for dependent variables and independent variables are estimated, the hypothesis of 10 different factors appeared all significant in regression analysis model coefficient (P<0.01) which is estimated to affect in the hypothesis. As a result of liner regression analysis between two independent variables drawn by influence factor analysis for R&D capability and R&D capability. IT infra and IT Utilization which are CAI capability factors has positive correlation to organization capability, process capability, human resources capability, technology-accumulating capability, and collaboration capability with inside and outside which are dependent variables, R&D capability factors. It was identified as a significant factor which affects R&D capability. However, considering adjustable variables, a big gap is found, compared to entire company. First of all, in case of partner companies with big companies, in IT infra as CAI capability, organization capability, process capability, human resources capability, and technology capability out of R&D capacities seems to have positive correlation. However, collaboration capability appeared insignificance. IT utilization which is a CAI capability factor seemed to have positive relation to organization capability, process capability, human resources capability, and internal/external collaboration capability just as those of entire companies. Next, by analyzing independent types of SMEs as an adjustable variable, very different results were found from those of entire companies or partner companies with big companies. First of all, all factors in IT infra except technology-accumulating capability were rejected. IT utilization was rejected except technology-accumulating capability and collaboration capability. Comprehending the above adjustable variables, the following results were drawn in this study. First, in case of big companies or partner companies with big companies, IT infra and IT utilization affect improving R&D Capabilities positively. It was because most of big companies encourage innovation by using IT utilization and IT infra building over certain level to their partner companies. Second, in all companies, IT infra and IT utilization as CAI capability affect improving technology-accumulating capability positively at least as R&D capability factor. The most of factor explanation is low at around 10%. However, technology-accumulating capability is rather high around 25.6% to 38.4%. It was found that CAI capability contributes to technology-accumulating capability highly. Companies shouldn't consider IT infra and IT utilization as a simple product developing tool in R&D section. However, they have to consider to use them as a management innovating strategy tool which proceeds entire-company management innovation centered in new product development. Not only the improvement of technology-accumulating capability in department of R&D. Centered in new product development, it has to be used as original management innovative strategy which proceeds entire company management innovation. It suggests that it can be a method to improve technology-accumulating capability in R&D section and Dynamic capability to acquire sustainable competitive advantage.

• Journal of Distribution Research
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.65-86
• /
• 2012

The $20^{th}$ century was the era of manufacturer brands which built higher brand equity for consumers. Consumers moved from generic products of inconsistent quality produced by local factories in the $19^{th}$ century to branded products from global manufacturers and manufacturer brands reached consumers through distributors and retailers. Retailers were relatively small compared to their largest suppliers. However, sometime in the 1970s, things began to slowly change as retailers started to develop their own national chains and began international expansion, and consolidation of the retail industry from mom-and-pop stores to global players was well under way (Kumar and Steenkamp 2007, p.2) In South Korea, since the middle of the 1990s, the bulking up of retailers that started then has changed the balance of power between manufacturers and retailers. Retailer private labels, generally referred to as own labels, store brands, distributors own private-label, home brand or own label brand have also been performing strongly in every single local market (Bushman 1993; De Wulf et al. 2005). Private labels now account for one out of every five items sold every day in U.S. supermarkets, drug chains, and mass merchandisers (Kumar and Steenkamp 2007), and the market share in Western Europe is even larger (Euromonitor 2007). In the UK, grocery market share of private labels grew from 39% of sales in 2008 to 41% in 2010 (Marian 2010). Planet Retail (2007, p.1) recently concluded that "[PLs] are set for accelerated growth, with the majority of the world's leading grocers increasing their own label penetration." Private labels have gained wide attention both in the academic literature and popular business press and there is a glowing academic research to the perspective of manufacturers and retailers. Empirical research on private labels has mainly studies the factors explaining private labels market shares across product categories and/or retail chains (Dahr and Hoch 1997; Hoch and Banerji, 1993), factors influencing the private labels proneness of consumers (Baltas and Doyle 1998; Burton et al. 1998; Richardson et al. 1996) and factors how to react brand manufacturers towards PLs (Dunne and Narasimhan 1999; Hoch 1996; Quelch and Harding 1996; Verhoef et al. 2000). Nevertheless, empirical research on factors influencing the production in terms of a manufacturer-retailer is rather anecdotal than theory-based. The objective of this paper is to bridge the gap in these two types of research and explore the factors which influence on manufacturer's private label production based on two competing theories: S-C-P (Structure - Conduct - Performance) paradigm and resource-based theory. In order to do so, the authors used in-depth interview with marketing managers, reviewed retail press and research and presents the conceptual framework that integrates the major determinants of private labels production. From a manufacturer's perspective, supplying private labels often starts on a strategic basis. When a manufacturer engages in private labels, the manufacturer does not have to spend on advertising, retailer promotions or maintain a dedicated sales force. Moreover, if a manufacturer has weak marketing capabilities, the manufacturer can make use of retailer's marketing capability to produce private labels and lessen its marketing cost and increases its profit margin. Figure 1. is the theoretical framework based on a strategic market management perspective, integrated concept of both S-C-P paradigm and resource-based theory. The model includes one mediate variable, marketing capabilities, and the other moderate variable, competitive intensity. Manufacturer's national brand reputation, firm's marketing investment, and product portfolio, which are hypothesized to positively affected manufacturer's marketing capabilities. Then, marketing capabilities has negatively effected on private label production. Moderating effects of competitive intensity are hypothesized on the relationship between marketing capabilities and private label production. To verify the proposed research model and hypotheses, data were collected from 192 manufacturers (212 responses) who are producing private labels in South Korea. Cronbach's alpha test, explanatory / comfirmatory factor analysis, and correlation analysis were employed to validate hypotheses. The following results were drawing using structural equation modeling and all hypotheses are supported. Findings indicate that manufacturer's private label production is strongly related to its marketing capabilities. Consumer marketing capabilities, in turn, is directly connected with the 3 strategic factors (e.g., marketing investment, manufacturer's national brand reputation, and product portfolio). It is moderated by competitive intensity between marketing capabilities and private label production. In conclusion, this research may be the first study to investigate the reasons manufacturers engage in private labels based on two competing theoretic views, S-C-P paradigm and resource-based theory. The private label phenomenon has received growing attention by marketing scholars. In many industries, private labels represent formidable competition to manufacturer brands and manufacturers have a dilemma with selling to as well as competing with their retailers. The current study suggests key factors when manufacturers consider engaging in private label production.